18 Year Flashback: QPR Fans Facing QPR Crises

QPR1st 5th June 2001 - Statement issued to the press

QPR 1st has renewed its plea to potential new owners to come forward and buy QPR and the Loftus Road ground.

Loftus Road plc, which comprises Queens Park Rangers Football Club and the Loftus Road stadium, is currently in administration, and up for sale.

QPR 1st spokeswoman Libby Magrill said: "Our understanding is that none of the reported bids have yet been finalised. This is naturally creating a climate of apprehension amongst the fans. Owner Chris Wright has pledged to support the club financially through until October. But that is less than four months away, and the long-term future of the club remains uncertain."

QPR 1st is inviting potential new owners to take over the club and work in partnership with the fans. The message from QPR 1st to any new owner is that they don't have to expect to lose money by keeping QPR at Loftus Road.

Libby Magrill said: "The outside perception of QPR is that the club is haemorrhaging money and can't operate within budget outside the Premiership. Therefore buyers are not flocking to our door. If one of football's defining characteristics is to ignore normal business practice and freelance the whole exercise on a seat-of-pants basis, then maybe it's time someone did it by the book.

"With the right business plan, realistic for a club in the Second Division, and working in constructive partnership with the fans, there is no reason why a club owning its own stadium and enjoying good support cannot operate successfully."

QPR1st Special Report on the EGM - Friday 18th May 2001

The heart and soul remain the same, but the face of football has changed rapidly this past decade. So too has the nature of fans' protests. There is still a place for public demonstration of anger and frustration aimed at the manager, the board... even the team itself. But as the game evolves, so too must the culture of the ordinary fans. No longer are pitch invasions, sit-ins, or protesting outside on the street the only option for fans to add voice to their discontent. In the Eighties we had fanzines, in the Nineties we had the growth of independent supporter associations, and here in the new millennium we have supporters trusts.

There is still a lot of suspicion and mistrust about what exactly is a supporters trust - most of it from the boardroom, where the notion of supporters having meaningful in-put into the running of their club is seen as impractical at best, threatening at worst. We fans pay our money at the turnstiles, and that for many chairmen is as far as it goes when it comes to supporter involvement in the running of their club. Which would be fine if they weren't making such a pig's ear of it in general.

But supporters trusts are the future. Run on co-operative principles, open and accountable, supporters trusts may not yet be custodians of their club, but they are very much the guardians. Ask Bournemouth fans, or Lincoln fans, or Northampton fans. Without the formation of supporters trusts at those clubs, all three would now no longer exist. We have seen the future in action, and it works.

QPR 1st, formed under that same co-operative principle, has to conform to strict rules and is regulated, directly by Supporters Direct, indirectly by Government, to ensure that it does. In line with that, our ultimate aim is to gain elected supporter representation on the board. That Chris Wright, with Nick Blackburn alongside him nodding in agreement, isn't sure that an ordinary fan would be appropriate "as it would mean wearing a suit in the boardroom" shows how far we have to go to make that a reality at QPR. At least, under the present directors.

Perhaps that attitude goes some way to explaining why there has been a high turnover of Chief Executives and related positions at QPR; men who have come to our club on big salaries and without the remotest idea or understanding of its culture and complexities, and left soon after... without achieving very much at all. Other than contributing further to the mountain of debt that has lead us into financial administration, that is. Should QPR be wound up as a result, you might find some comfort in fact that they at least wore a suit whilst leading us into oblivion.

Ah yes, the threat of being wound up. QPR no longer in existence. Defunct. To paraphrase Monty Python, an ex-club, one that has ceased to be. Not a threat hanging over the rugby union arm of the business. Wasps, we are told, were excluded from administration as rugby union rules do not allow clubs in administration to play. The Football League, on the other hand, does allow clubs in administration to fulfil their fixtures. No matter that the rugby union season was nearly ended, and we are talking here of one of the highest profile clubs in the land, currently second in the table, and the supplier of several international players. Would the authorities really take such draconian and immediate steps?

Within just a few days of the suspension of share dealing and BDO Stoy Hayward being appointed to run the financial affairs of the remainder of Loftus Road plc, there was an offer from Chris Wright to buy Wasps and the Twyford Avenue training ground for a fee of £5m. It transpired he had registered a brand new company, London Wasps Holdings, even before the High Court application for administration. Chris Wright explained that he was making an offer on Wasps and the training ground - leaving just QPR and Loftus Road under the plc banner - in order to reduce the debt and facilitate a sale of QPR and the ground to new owners. An EGM was arranged - called by Loftus Road plc - to approve the sales. With Chris Wright being the main creditor and majority shareholder of Loftus Road plc, then it is a formaility the sale will be approved.

The EGM was held at Loftus Road - not inside, but in the South Africa Road stand, a makeshift stand built over the directors box to accomodate the top table, and shareholders and guests sitting in the rows of seats alongside. A week that had begun in sweltering heat was now bordering on the chilly, and as the EGM progressed, so many amongst the 300 or so shareholders present began to regret not having worn a coat.

On the top table sat Chris Wright, and alongside him various directors and at least three lawyers. No Nick Blackburn, QPR's acting chairman. The meeting was chaired by Ross Jones, who stated he was a banker - of the investment, rather than high street branch variety, it was guessed. He chaired what proved a stormy and eventful meeting as even-handedly as anyone could reasonably expect.

There were four resolutions to be voted on. They related to the sale of Wasps, the sale of the Twyford Avenue training ground, to convert the single preference share into an ordinary one, and for a change to the memorandum and articles. The first two resolutions are self-explanatory. The second two, without going into lengthy explanations, related to a spot of plc 'tidying up' should the sale of Wasps be approved. As part of the plc, Wasps Trustees held a 'golden share', which gave them extra power and veto rights over any decision which would adversely effect Wasps. Now no longer part of the plc, there was no need for that one golden share, and it could safely be converted to an ordinary one. The changes to the articles simply amounted to removing references to Wasps.

In the week leading up to the EGM, QPR 1st had made formal requests to have included in the resolutions amendments which would allow for any bidder for Loftus Road plc to buy back either Wasps or Twyford Avenue, or both, at the same price Chris Wright, and any partner, had paid for them. Although Chris Wright would not agree to such an amendment, he did provide written assurances that his own intentions were to facilitate such an arrangement. However, in the absence of any formal amendment, QPR 1st announced we would be voting against the sales on the basis that we did not feel either was in the best long-term interests of Queens Park Rangers.

We were represented at the meeting by Maurice FitzGerald, who leads on shareholding, and Bill Butler, who is a commercial banking expert. Both are members of the QPR 1st Interim Committee. We were given a mandate by the floor at the Hammersmith Town Hall to take forward the business of the supporters trust and form a bona fide organisation under the Supporters Direct initiative within three calendar months. As an interim committee, we are able to co-opt other fans for specific tasks. Maurice has been an interim committee member since the formation, and Bill was formally asked to join the committee to utilise his skills and experience at the EGM. The right man for the right job. Both Maurice and Bill attended the meeting, legitimately, as ordinary shareholders, but with the mandate to act on behalf of QPR 1st.

The meeting began, unexpectedly, with a question and answer session. We say 'unexpectedly', as it had been reported that no questions would be allowed at the meeting, If that had ever been so, this more pragmatic approach helped keep the meeting to a semblance of order. Chris Wright took the lead in answering most of the questions from the audience. It appears that the blame for the proposed merger with Wimbledon could be laid at the feet of other board members and Wimbledon FC. The poor performances on the pitch this past season was the fault of Gerry Francis and the players. The mountain of debt the plc is now buried under was due to the extravagances and mismanagement of various individuals. And the succession of failed managers at the club was all the fault of the fans, who had called for the men appointed. Everyone, it seems, shares in the situation the club now finds itself in.

Chris Wright talked at length about how long fat contracts for lazy fat players had cost us our place in the First Division. He went on to say that they were making offers to some senior players, who he fully expects will advertise their availability to other clubs in search of a better deal... before coming back to QPR to sign on for another stint. No mention of telling them where to get off if they do. Chris Wright really does give the impression of a man who never learns from his own mistakes, but who has 20/20 hindsight when judging those of others.

The fun really begun when the question arose as to the value of the Twyford Avenue training ground. Did the figure of £2.5m, accepted by the adminstrator as a fair valuation, relate to the actual value of the land ('as is') or what it might be worth ('hope value') should, for example, planning permission, be granted in future years. Valuations carried out by members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors must adhere strictly to the rules laid down in what is known as their 'red book'. Banks, too, will only lend money on 'as is' valuation, not what might be realised from a sell-on in the future. How then had the £2.5m valuation been arrived at, and by whom, and where was the finance for the deal coming from?

If planning permission was one day granted for redevelopment of the training ground, and the land suddenly rocketed in value to, say, £20m, £30m or even £50m (the 'uplift'), then as the resolution stood now, the profit on any sell-on would go in full to Chris Wright. And partner. That's business, we guess. But is it in keeping with the oft-stated promise to protect the interests of QPR? Maybe, maybe not - but it is a perfect example of how, in trying to balance the demands of business and pleasure, a chairman can find himself firmly between a rock and a hard place. Chris Wright's favourite line is that Richard Branson is a businessman playing at being a hippy, and he is a hippy playing at being a businessman. Perhaps he's told it so often he has started to believe it himself. Someone has to.

The resolution, as it stood, had no provision for a sharing of any up-lift. A bit like a transfer deal without a sell-on clause. Would Chris Wright, asked the man from CARA, the local residents association, agree then to an amendment to the resolution, which would provide for a sharing out of any future windfall from the sale or redevelopment of the training ground?

Chris Wright went into a huddle with his lawyers and emerged figuratively reaching into his back pocket and offered 10 per cent of any up-lift to QPR, and a further 10 per cent to Wasps. "That is totally unacceptable," responded Bill, who then called for a straightforward three-way split between Chris Wright, QPR and Wasps, or thirty-three and a third per cent each. Chris Wright was by this time looking increasingly pale, and not through the cold. A robust 20 minutes of old-fashioned horse-trading ensued, with Bill holding firm on the principle of proportional sharing and arguing the finer points of banking practice and law with the top table, as he is qualified to do.

From what Chris Wright was saying in reply, it began to appear that it wasn't a bank funding the purchase, but in fact private money. That was confirmed when Chris Wright referred at one point to "various people offering financial backing". So a private individual or company then? Maybe a property company or a developer? Chris Wright wouldn't say. The penny by now had dropped amongst the assembled shareholders. As had become apparent to us throughout the preceding week, there was clearly more to the purchase of the training ground than mere goodwill on the part of Chris Wright.

Eventually, after many exchanges, Loftus Road witnessed one its more bizarre sights - Bill and Maurice standing in a stairwell with the lawyers, redrafting the resolution to include provision for a one-third share of any future up-lift - potentially worth millions to QPR - and arguing over the legal interpretations and implications of such phrases as 'change of use'. Finally satisfied with the wording, Bill, Maurice and the lawyers returned to their respective seats and the resolution was read out again. Not, though, the amended version, but bizarrely the original. Bill stood up and objected again. Again, argument and counter-argument ensued, with the top table increasingly looking totally disorganised and unable to grasp what was going on... a suitable snapshot of the past five years, some suggested later.

Chris Wright continued to prevaricate over the question of thirty-three and a third per cent. But he wasn't be asked to commit to that figure - he couldn't anyway - merely to commit to the principle of going back to his financial backers and obtaining that figure. He was asked this specific question over a dozen times, before finally agreeing to do so. Two votes amongst the shareholders present followed, in which the original resolution was unanimously rejected in favour of the new, amended one.

Sadly, that doesn't mean that QPR can look forward to a massive windfall in a few years' time. To begin with, any new buyer for the club has both written and publicly stated assurances that they can buy-back either Wasps and the Twyford Avenue training ground, or both, if they wish to. It also seems unlikely, at least in the present climes, that planning permission would be granted for the site, although it is reasonable to assume that if it is a building company backing Chris Wright, they will be reasonably confident that won't always be the case. The Sudbury site of Wasps old ground didn't have planning permission at the time Loftus Road plc was formed, although that later changed on appeal and saw the value rise to around the £8m, a sum the company subsequently realised from its sale. The site now houses luxury homes in the lower to middle six-figure price bracket.

On top of this, even allowing for the amendment, Chris Wright's majority shareholding will eventually ensure that the proposed figures are down-sized, but where before there was no provision for QPR to receive a share of any up-lift, now there is something, although the chances of QPR benefiting from it remain remote. Chris Wright, despite objections from the floor - "Is it right and proper that someone with a vested interest in the deal should vote on it too?" - exercised his right to vote as a shareholder.

One of the considerations of voting against the deal was how it might affect the continued financial backing of Chris Wright. After the EGM, Bill sought him out to explain that there was nothing personal in the exchanges over the previous two hours. He had, he explained, merely been acting in the best interests of QPR. Chris Wright, in turn, assured Bill that there was no question of his withdrawing funds, and was verbally explicit in saying that he would do "absolutely anything" to facilitate the sale of QPR into good hands. We really do not doubt that Chris Wright is committed to that, and let the record state as much.

One sour note to the EGM, though, came when QPR 1st co-founder, Tracy Stent, along with other guests, was asked to leave the meeting and re-register. Having done so, Tracy was alone subsequently refused re-entry. Not a shareholder, she had been asked to attend as a guest on behalf of an elderly shareholder unable to go along in person. She did not force her way in, as was suggested by the top table, but legitimately presented her admission card, explained the circumstances of her attendance and was shown up to the meeting. Although within their rights to ask Tracy to leave on a matter of technical procedure, it was disappointing that board chose to do so. No official protest will be pursued, though. All the same, it is difficult to understand why it was done. Tracy subsequently visited the shareholder in person to explain the circumstances, and apologise for not being able to provide a first-hand report of proceedings.

The sale of Wasps (voted on and agreed without objection) and the training ground will realise £1.4m, of which QPR will see just £400,000. The remaining £3.6m of the combined deal will be written off the existing debt, which includes a £600,000 loan made by Chris Wright on March 13. The deal gives QPR a guaranteed five years' tenancy at the training ground, with a 12-month notice period thereafter. QPR will pay what has been described as a 'commercial rent' to use the facility, and Wasps will in turn pay a 'commercial rent' to play at Loftus Road. It is envisaged that QPR will train in the mornings, Wasps in the afternoon, and the Wasps amateur teams in the evening.

Although powerless to prevent the sale, this was still a moral victory for QPR 1st. It brought out into the open various pieces of information that would otherwise have remained undisclosed. It exemplified how by utilising the skills within the fan-base, a supporters trust can and does act in the best interests of the club and the fans. It is merely a beginning. There is much to do, but the will and the organisation is there. We need a strong, well-supported and active trust at QPR and everyone has a part to play in that. If you haven't registered support for QPR 1st, do it now. You won't be committing to anything other than your backing for the kind of in-put Bill and Maurice had at the EGM.

There were plenty of impassioned speeches from the floor, with Joe Hylton again to the fore, but the star of the show was undoubtedly Bill Butler. Without his persistence and doggedness, supported by others, but unequalled when it came to challenging financial issues, QPR would today be a little poorer as a result. The likes of David Mellor and Gary Newbon can rubbish QPR supporters all they like, but here was the acceptable face of fan-power in action. To the casual observer it might have been just another day, and another chapter in the life and troubled times of Queens Park Rangers Football Club. But to the thousands of fans who have pledged their support to the new supporters trust, and to the lucky few who were present, this was the day that the bloodied QPR fan decided to stand up for himself at long last. The blue and white hooped genie is out of the bottle and nothing - and certainly no individual - will ever force it back.

"One Bill Butler... there's only one Bill Butler..." went the chant as the meeting closed and people headed off to get warm at last. It seems you can take the shareholder out of the fan, but you can't take the fan out of the shareholder… Chris Wright, meanwhile, hurried out of Loftus Road and climbed into his chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce and sped off to Lords for the test match - an incongruous image against the backdrop of the White City Estate.

Just an old hippy? Who's he kidding?

QPR1st May 5, 2001

"Merger Thursday": We Meet Chris Wright

A horrible day. QPR fans woke up to the breaking news that, 14 years on from the last proposed merger, another was on the cards. This time it wasn't Fulham, but Wimbledon. Different club, same reaction.

So, first, a press release - in which we state our opposition to the proposed merger and promise to fight it all the way. We do so in the belief that the overwhelming majority of QPR fans will be opposed to such an idea. "Working to protect the identity of and future of Queens Park Rangers". That is the platform on which we launched QPR 1st. Here then is our first big test. We are an organisation just three weeks into existence, still sifting through close to 2,000 registrations and putting in place a truly democratic 'one member, one vote' set-up. In that time, we have had a thousand people turn up to a public meeting and provide overwhelming support for the idea of setting up a supporters trust.

We have backing from the government, from the FA, the Football League, and the PFA. We receive support from the council, from the Mayor, from the local MP, and from the Shepherds Bush business community. We now have the voting power of over two million shares pledged. Of course, that is insignificant compared to Chris Wright's majority shareholding, but as a meaningful lobby of small shareholders, it is a hugely significant figure.

So the wording of the press release, then. We promise to fight any merger. It is our unshakeable belief that it is something the overwhelming majority of QPR fans are opposed to and state as much. Predictably, from some, there is criticism that we don't represent the views of ALL the fans - not something, to the best of our belief and knowledge, we have ever done. There are those who in favour of a merger, we accept that. And indeed respect their views.

But we're a democratic organisation, and the messages of support from people registering support for QPR 1st merely confirm our unshakeable belief that the majority of QPR fans oppose a merger. It is all very well arguing that, if looked at unemotionally, the merger is a good business proposition. Which of course it is. But you can't conveniently take the emotional aspect out of the equation. Choosing to support a football club is not a cold decision. It's one that comes from the heart, and is pursued via an emotional roller-coaster. That's the appeal, the very essence of supporting a club. Those of us who came to the fore to take QPR 1st forward - not just for our own benefit, but for all QPR fans who share our beliefs and visions - bleed blue and white. If you love something - truly love something, even if it is only a football club - then you'll not only nurture it, you'll fight tooth and nail to protect it. We are QPR. We are not QPR incorporating anyone else.

The amount of vitriol that comes our way because of that stance is astonishing. There are ridiculous suggestions that we knew about the merger three weeks ago, although nothing to explain why we would wish to keep that to ourselves. We are accused of everything from being "unrepresentative" (don't think so!) to being a cosy little clique with all sorts of hidden agendas (not so). What an insult that is to those who have pledged support for QPR 1st, numbers which are rising rapidly every day. In fact so vitriolic is it at times, that you would be forgiven for thinking it was almost orchestrated. At least we always put our proper names to, for example, postings on the Internet. It's interesting that so much of the criticism of QPR 1st comes from anonymous sources. Fine, democracy means that those who support the merger are entitled to form their own collective voice. Let them come to Molineux on Sunday and canvass support.

So the wording of the press release contains no prevarication. As a responsible organisation, of course we have to listen to the proposals with an open mind. But they are splashed all over the newspapers, and in turn reproduced on the Internet. There's nothing in the proposals to make us believe the majority of QPR fans will view this merger any differently to the one in 1987, or significantly oppose it any less.

The merger story in the Sun can, we decide, be looked at from one of three perspectives. Firstly, that it is the route Chris Wright and the administrators are set on. In which case, it is something that will inevitably be fought by fans of both clubs. Secondly, it is a story deliberately leaked to the press and designed to create a smokescreen whereby the fear of merger tempts a firm bid to the table. So far, we are told, there have been 30 or so expressions of interest in buying QPR but no firm bid tabled. Nothing like a good scare story to propel potential buyers into action. Thirdly, it is a classic negotiating tactic - present a worst case scenario, then downgrade it to something not quite so unpalatable, but something which in itself would have met opposition. A groundshare perhaps? A sell-off of Loftus Road and QPR groundsharing somewhere else? A move to a new stadium? It's all guesswork, but the meeting with Chris Wright this evening will present an opportunity to sort out some fact from fiction. Or not as the case may be.

*************

The meeting with Chris Wright and representatives from QPR 1st, had been agreed a week or more beforehand. The objective of it was to obtain first-hand information about his plans and intentions for QPR. It was also to convey the aims and objectives of a supporters trust and take the first step in what we hope will eventually lead to a 'listening club' - not one that merely pays lip service to the notion that the fan-base should be an inclusive part of the way the club is run, not peripheral to it. But of course the merger was now the key issue to address.

Would the story coming out in the papers (a coincidence or timely?) and the protests which had gone on all day, both outside Loftus Road and at the FA, scupper the meeting. We assembled, nine of us from the Interim Commitee, there representing QPR 1st, but equally drawn from across the broad spectrum of QPR support, incorporating the LSA, shareholders, webmasters, and A Kick Up The R's. Even up to the last minute we were waiting to confirm the location of the meeting. As it transpired, Nick Blackburn and Chris Wright came to us, not us to them

Nick Blackburn arrived first, and proceeded to tell us about the thinking behind the proposed merger. It seems it was first mooted at Selhurst Park after the 5-0 defeat by Wimbledon. He describes it as an idea discussed "half-heartedly" and as a "bit of a joke". They are not words, we are quick to point out, that are particularly appropriate to the future of our football club. It seems the idea was then discussed further at QPR board level and a more formal approach made to Wimbledon. Nick Blackburn said that the QPR board felt that, due to the financial difficulties facing the club, it was a proposal that merited a further look.

He asked us if we saw any merit in the merger or if the whole thing was the worst idea in the world? The latter, we informed him. Even if a merger meant come August we would be able to watch a team "wearing hoops" at Loftus Road, but with 'Wimbledon' incorporated into the club name, playing Manchester City in front of 20,000 fans, rather than QPR playing Bristol City in front of 8,000? Especially not if meant a team wearing hoops at Loftus Road, but with Wimbledon incorporated into the club name, playing Manchester City in front of 20,000 fans, we assured him. QPR then, QPR now, QPR always, to steal a line. We would rather watch QPR at the bottom of Division Three having retained our own identity, than watch some hybrid, mongrel club at any level. The continual use of the word 'hybrid' began to annoy Nick Blackburn after a while, we felt. Hybrid, mongrel, or whatever - what guarantee was there that the new amalgamated club would be successful. There were, we reminded him, alternative ways to fill a stadium. That was one of the ways in which QPR 1st could contribute. (Dare we suggest that a full stadium week in, week out is the wish of every QPR fan, or do we need to acknowledge that there are perhaps some fans who only want a half-full stadium?)

Chris Wright arrived not too long after. He sat down, and invited us to fire questions at him, anything we wanted to know. He would answer as honestly as could, he assured us. Tell us the precise situation QPR are in now, we invited.

He began by explaining the injuries which had blighted our season and eventually led to relegation. No, he wasn't happy with the performances, but impending relegation and the consequential worsening financial difficulties, whereby the club were potentially trading insolvently, forced the club into administration. Chris Wright is an engaging speaker in the surrounds of a less formal setting such as this, but there is still a feeling that you give him a cue and the well-rehearsed lines come out one after another. The product of a man who has been interviewed a thousand times, and forgiveable for that alone. There was nothing he said that any of us hadn't heard before. Until of course the point when he got to the merger.

He reiterated Nick Blackburn's views that it was merely an idea, one in fact that he himself had decided three days beforehand was a non-starter. Even so, he believed that many Football League clubs were looking at the possibility of merger - many Football League club's CHAIRMAN he agreed, after interjection on our part - and used the two Sheffield clubs as an illustration of how two medium sized clubs could merge to compete as one powerful one in a 50,000 stadium. The assumption that it would be a FULL stadium was one that didn't go unchallenged. Nor did Nick Blackburn's earlier suggestion that Loftus Road would be heaving with 20,000 punters desperate to see Quimbledon, or whatever the name was. More like a tenth of that, we suggested. And no support away from home.

It was always, he assured us, the club's intention to seeking the views of season ticket holders, shareholders and members, and the merger would only proceed if there was a significant majority against the idea. It would all have depended on the results of a ballot. And of the way it was worded, we interjected. It would have been a straightforward poll, he responded, and if the verdict had been anti-merger then he saw no way that QPR could go down that route.

We expressed shock that someone who is a fan, and around in 1987, should even begin to entertain a merger - a horrible word to QPR fans. Had the protests today come as a surprise to Chris Wright? No, they hadn't. Was he aware that whilst we might be sitting around the table in a calm manner, there were many, many very angry fans out there, some of whom were planning further protests both at Wolves on Sunday, and also at Loftus Road on Sunday? He didn't doubt it.

He was now talking in the past tense, we pointed out. Did this mean that no ballot would take place? The story breaking in the Sun, he felt, had scuppered any rational debate on the merits of the merger, so no it was not an option that the club would now persue. In any case the strength of feeling demonstrated at the ground, on the messageboards, and around the table here this evening had confirmed his own private feelings that a merger is not the way forward.

So what is the way forward? He confirmed that he would continue to fund the club until October, but of course a buyer may well come in tomorrow. And after October if no firm bid is recieved? What contingency plans did he have? None, was the short answer. But he stated he would not allow QPR to go bust. What conditions did he place on the sale? For example, would he consider selling Loftus Road separately to QPR? He promised he would do everything in his power to keep the two together.

What about the Wasps deal, which included Twyford Avenue as well? It seems he had kept Wasps out of the administration process as league rules meant any rugby club in administration would immediately be kicked out the league. The reason for buying the two was to reduce the debt linked to QPR, and therefore make it a more attractive proposition to any potential bidder. Would he agree to a clause whereby any bidder wanting to buy Wasps as part of the package could buy them and the training ground for the same price Chris Wright had paid. No, on balance, that wasn't something he was prepared to agree to. What about conditions of sale? What criteria, apart from bidders having the money, would he place on any sale? Again he thought it inappropriate to impose conditions on any sale but stated that he would ensure himself that any bid was the right deal for QPR. Did that include the City consortium who had made their interest public earlier that afternoon? They and anyone else who put in a firm bid, he stated.

Chris Wright wasn't the only person who had lost money with the collapse of the share price. He was though in a better position to shoulder the loss than many. What was his feelings on that? He was very sorry, of course, but football shares had performed poorly everywhere and we weren't the only club to suffer. What about accusations that he was really only interested in Wasps all along and that he has no interest in what happens to QPR? It was something he denied totally. Why had he used the incident at the Fulham game to step down as chairman and leave the club effectively rudderless? You are a rich businessman with diverse interests, we pointed out, surely you have not got where you are today without developing a thick skin? Anything but, he said, I am a very sensitive person, not thick-skinned at all. I take criticism very hard. I am used to dealing with singers, DJ's, actors - creative people. My skills lay in nurturing talent. But, yes, he agreed, the one thing QPR needed then, and needs now, is a 'hands-on' chairman. But it can no longer be himself. He had, we reminded him, actually got very little flak from the fans, certainly in comparison with chairmen at other clubs.

We talked about the concept of a supporters trust and what in-put one can have into the running of a football club. Both Chris Wright and Nick Blackburn stated they were receptive to the idea, and that they would be prepared to meet with QPR 1st on a regular basis. For now, on a weekly basis, we pitched? Fortnightly would be more realistic, given his full diary, responded Chris Wright. With that, and hour and a quarter after arriving, he was gone. Off to the BBC to give an interview to Radio Five.

The verdict of the meeting with him? He had given us a clear, unequivocal undertaking that there would be no merger with Wimbledon or any other club. He also stated that he would continue to do the best for QPR but it is always hard to pin someone down to hard specifics if they don't want to be pinned down. And the impression, as it always is with Chris Wright, is that he doesn't want to be pinned down. But the 'no merger' agreement was unequivocal enough - and all we can do is take that at face value. For now. No-one is under any illusions that there is a bigger game being played here. All we can really do is ensure to the best of our limited abilities that QPR fans are not treated as a pawn in all this, but as a major player whose views about the future of our club are paramount.

As we left the meeting and went home, Chris Wright was on Radio Five, saying much the same as he'd said to us. Merger had never been a serious issue, and he himself had big reservations about it. It would never have gone through without the backing of the fans anyway - and, no, it was "extremely unlikely" a ballot would now take place. No mention that the majority verdict had already been given anyway. All part of the game, of course, and one only just begun.

Dave Thomas (Fri May 5th 2001)

Bump....

Bump: The early days