|
Post by Macmoish on Apr 17, 2013 7:51:37 GMT
Not sure if he's serious or just having fun ...
Tony Fernandes
Tony Fernandes â€@tonyfernandes 59m
Of course it's not 15. Add a zeroT @tyburnleveller @tonyfernandes I know you wont say more, but £15m 4 new stadium is not plausible
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Apr 17, 2013 7:53:37 GMT
Fernandes Tweets Loan for qpr is for new stadium. Next 2 weeks will be hopefully good news. But work is starting. We will not say anymore on stadium. Good. Stay where we are, we'll end up overtaken even by little Brentford.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Apr 17, 2013 7:57:55 GMT
David McIntyre â€@davidmcintyre76 1m
Twitter's good. Despite fact a chairman can tweet & in seconds make something you're about to publish look a bit pointless. Twice in a week!
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Apr 17, 2013 8:05:47 GMT
David McIntyre â€@davidmcintyre76 1m Twitter's good. Despite fact a chairman can tweet & in seconds make something you're about to publish look a bit pointless. Twice in a week! ;D
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Apr 17, 2013 8:37:16 GMT
So Tony is saying the press have got the loan amount wrong and that it's actually £150m for the new stadium??
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Apr 17, 2013 9:55:25 GMT
I'd call this "A Must Read!" Dave McIntyre/West London Sport www.westlondonsport.com/features-comment/qpr-owners-stay-committed-because-their-eyes-are-on-the-prizeDave McIntyre/West London Sport QPR owners stay committed because their eyes are on the prize 17/04/2013There has been plenty of speculation about QPR’s finances and how the club’s owners will respond to relegation. It’s become trendy to suggest Rangers might ‘do a Portsmouth’ – a grim picture painted with some relish by Tony Fernandes’ detractors. This misses the point, as does basking in the warm glow of assurances about his long-term commitment whenever such platitudes are trotted out. Both sides are failing to see the bigger picture. Be in no doubt that Rangers’ owners will remain absolutely committed to their project and have no intention of walking away, regardless of which division the team are in. Because, although relegation is an obvious major setback, when it comes to the regime’s long-term ambitions, the importance of which division Rangers are in next season is easily overstated. Notice that whenever the likes of Fernandes and Philip Beard restate the shareholders’ commitment they almost always mention a new stadium in the next breath. That’s no accident. Leaving Loftus Road is a key aim. Fernandes is presented with a PR open goal when he can heroically reaffirm his commitment to the cause in the face of relegation – because it’s the pursuit of a new sports and entertainment venue, not whether Rangers stay in the top flight, that locks the owners in for the long haul. Any hitch there would be much more significant than relegation – a potential game changer. But, Crossrail permitting, such a hitch looks increasingly unlikely. A new sport and leisure complex in the west/north-west London area could generate an absolute fortune – more than enough to dwarf even the huge losses incurred by Rangers’ feckless spending. It would be comparable to the regeneration of areas of east London and so would the subsequent wealth to spring from it. It would also establish QPR’s Malaysian shareholders as major players in London – one of the most prominent cities in the world. It’s why Beard, a man with little football knowledge or understanding of QPR fans’ priorities, but with a background in branding and having helped establish the O2 Arena as a leading entertainment destination, was installed as chief executive. And it’s why Fernandes appears so calm and committed despite ill-informed assumptions that the club’s owners can’t sustain the current level of spending. They can sustain it. And they will sustain it while there’s a potential pot of gold in sight. Much has been lost, but there’s still an awful lot to be gained. So, fully committed? Absolutely. In it for the long haul? Too right. A £15m loan secured against the club’s assets last month looks suspicious and will inevitably be taken as a sign of financial stress and the commitment of the regime possibly wavering. Again, this move has been made largely with the new stadium in mind. It is a strategic move by Fernandes and chums to test a relationship with lenders Barclays Hong Kong – a growing relationship which has existed for some time and could be called upon in future years if, despite their collective wealth, Rangers’ owners are not keen to fund the entire cost of a new stadium and training ground. QPR plan to repay it quickly, possibly within three or four months. In securing such a loan while facing relegation from the Premier League, and in a climate in which banks are reluctant to loan money to football clubs, Rangers have established that, going forward, they won’t have problems getting access to cash. Of course, ‘doing a Portsmouth’ can’t be ruled out. No amount of money is finite, losses cannot be permanently sustainable, loans secured against the club’s assets are never something to savour, and failing to get back into the top flight would be problematic. So too would relegation from the Championship which, although an outcome Fernandes’ army of believers probably won’t contemplate, is entirely possible given the shambles he continues to preside over. But the regime’s pockets are deep and their eyes are on the prize. So although a Pompey-style meltdown could happen, as things stand the club is more likely to end up spiritually rather than financially ruined. Many dismiss Fernandes’ vision of a 40,000-capacity stadium as a bizarre and misguided pipe dream, given QPR’s relatively modest fan base. They fail to understand the scope of his rebranding project, which is every bit as radical as Flavio Briatore’s despite the more touchy feely style.Football, QPR and the London landscape are changing rapidly and over the next few years are likely to change even more. A state-of-the-art stadium and leisure complex in an overhauled area of west/north-west London, which is home to high-profile players from parts of the world where the Premier League (which Rangers hope to be back in by then) is massive, would be a huge attraction – and extremely profitable. It would also mean the end of QPR as we know it, which for some will equate to a Wimbledon-style killing of their club and for others will be necessary progress given Rangers’ limited growth potential while they remain at Loftus Road.Either way, it’s a project Fernandes and co remain determined to press ahead with. West London Sport
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Apr 17, 2013 10:16:24 GMT
Two questions.
Second one first! ;D
2. Is this an outright lie?
"The loan is personally guaranteed in full by the club's shareholders, who remain wholly committed to the club's short, medium and long-term objectives".
If Mac's recent search of the Land Registry revealed a NEW £15 million loan secured AGAINST THE GROUND, what, exactly, are they reassuring us about?
If the shareholders are guaranteeing the loan PERSONALLY why is it SECURED against the CLUB'S assets? Why isn't it charged against THEIRS?
If this is really the beginning of a prolonged financial catastrophe, then maybe they've taken care to get THEIR debt repaid with a loan from Barclays, which they've charged against the Ground, replacing the charge they held over the Ground.
So they pocket the cash, while the Club is still left holding the debt, the price of Thompson's sale to Wright 15 YEARS AGO. For an interesting parallel, At West Ham, shareholders and creditors will pocket the entire £70 million value of the old ground, dumping the Club in a new one. Will the Club actually own the Olympic Stadium?
So, second question (or is it the first?)
1. Did Bhatia lie when he said there was no debt?
(Rhetorical question, maybe, my opinion is that he didn't.
If you read the precise wording of his statement, he seemed to be SAYING there was no debt, while ensuring that the tortuous wording was entirely compatible with the most enormous debts and losses).
So he's in the clear. When he seems to be saying there is effectively NO debt, he means the debt is SOARING. So fast that sort term loans have to be taken out with banks because Mittal is perennially short of cash.
Such is the nature of their 'commitment'.
Didn't trust him then, don't trust him now. Same with Fernandes.
The long article above indicates an interesting way of looking at it all, though. That QPR's losses don't matter to them, so long as they can use their foothold at QPR to buy into a vast sports and entertainment complex the value of which will DWARF the Rs losses.
And where, as Beard tells us, QPR won't own a single thing. And won't get a single penny out of it. Tenants don't.
Somehow, none of it rings true. Especially the panicky £15 million loan.
How will borrowing £15 million secured against the CLUB'S assets test the relationship between them and Barclays Hong Kong?
Mac, is the previous charge still in place? Or does it look as though it has been paid off? Didn't think the Ground was worth enough (although it might be VALUED that way) to cover two £15 million charges.
But why a bank loan for so little, as someone else said? If £89 million is nothing, as Fernandes keeps on telling us, why go to a BANK for such a tiny sum?
Wonder if Fulham will end up in this shambles? With the debt 'cleared' by Fayed suddenly materialising again to push the Club out of Craven Cottage and into a shopping centre by a railway line.
Every successful English Club plays in a shopping centre. Everyone knows that.
|
|
|
Post by kerrins on Apr 17, 2013 10:23:53 GMT
It could have been worse...we could have gone to Wonga
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Apr 17, 2013 12:53:45 GMT
In my opinion this is a strange new development.
Positively thinking, if the club own the loan and the loan is for a stadium then maybe that means the club will own the stadium when it is built.
Realistically, this is hogwash. The owners were perfectly happy to bankroll and then suddenly they aren't so the strategy is changing and the tweets are adding spin to the reasons for this strategy change.
£15m might be enough to design the stadium and get planning permission. It will cost an insane amount to regenerate whatever site they are proposing and sticking a shopping centre on the side is not going to recoup that level of costs. If Beard has been brought in because of his experience in making the O2 a success then they must have forgetten that the original construction cost was over £750m and it went into liquidation before a buyer was found that could make it viable. Even then, viability was only possible by the government accepting a massive write off of the original construction cost in return for a share of the profits over 25 years. It will never pay back it's original outlay to the taxpayer and lottery funds who made it possible.
For QPR, the taxpayer will not be there to fund and eventually bail out our stadium so just who is going to pay?
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Apr 17, 2013 13:13:36 GMT
I'd call this "A Must Read!" Dave McIntyre/West London Sport www.westlondonsport.com/features-comment/qpr-owners-stay-committed-because-their-eyes-are-on-the-prizeDave McIntyre/West London Sport QPR owners stay committed because their eyes are on the prize 17/04/2013There has been plenty of speculation about QPR’s finances and how the club’s owners will respond to relegation. It’s become trendy to suggest Rangers might ‘do a Portsmouth’ – a grim picture painted with some relish by Tony Fernandes’ detractors. This misses the point, as does basking in the warm glow of assurances about his long-term commitment whenever such platitudes are trotted out. Both sides are failing to see the bigger picture. Be in no doubt that Rangers’ owners will remain absolutely committed to their project and have no intention of walking away, regardless of which division the team are in. Because, although relegation is an obvious major setback, when it comes to the regime’s long-term ambitions, the importance of which division Rangers are in next season is easily overstated. Notice that whenever the likes of Fernandes and Philip Beard restate the shareholders’ commitment they almost always mention a new stadium in the next breath. That’s no accident. Leaving Loftus Road is a key aim. Fernandes is presented with a PR open goal when he can heroically reaffirm his commitment to the cause in the face of relegation – because it’s the pursuit of a new sports and entertainment venue, not whether Rangers stay in the top flight, that locks the owners in for the long haul. Any hitch there would be much more significant than relegation – a potential game changer. But, Crossrail permitting, such a hitch looks increasingly unlikely. A new sport and leisure complex in the west/north-west London area could generate an absolute fortune – more than enough to dwarf even the huge losses incurred by Rangers’ feckless spending. It would be comparable to the regeneration of areas of east London and so would the subsequent wealth to spring from it. It would also establish QPR’s Malaysian shareholders as major players in London – one of the most prominent cities in the world. It’s why Beard, a man with little football knowledge or understanding of QPR fans’ priorities, but with a background in branding and having helped establish the O2 Arena as a leading entertainment destination, was installed as chief executive. And it’s why Fernandes appears so calm and committed despite ill-informed assumptions that the club’s owners can’t sustain the current level of spending. They can sustain it. And they will sustain it while there’s a potential pot of gold in sight. Much has been lost, but there’s still an awful lot to be gained. So, fully committed? Absolutely. In it for the long haul? Too right. A £15m loan secured against the club’s assets last month looks suspicious and will inevitably be taken as a sign of financial stress and the commitment of the regime possibly wavering. Again, this move has been made largely with the new stadium in mind. It is a strategic move by Fernandes and chums to test a relationship with lenders Barclays Hong Kong – a growing relationship which has existed for some time and could be called upon in future years if, despite their collective wealth, Rangers’ owners are not keen to fund the entire cost of a new stadium and training ground. QPR plan to repay it quickly, possibly within three or four months. In securing such a loan while facing relegation from the Premier League, and in a climate in which banks are reluctant to loan money to football clubs, Rangers have established that, going forward, they won’t have problems getting access to cash. Of course, ‘doing a Portsmouth’ can’t be ruled out. No amount of money is finite, losses cannot be permanently sustainable, loans secured against the club’s assets are never something to savour, and failing to get back into the top flight would be problematic. So too would relegation from the Championship which, although an outcome Fernandes’ army of believers probably won’t contemplate, is entirely possible given the shambles he continues to preside over. But the regime’s pockets are deep and their eyes are on the prize. So although a Pompey-style meltdown could happen, as things stand the club is more likely to end up spiritually rather than financially ruined. Many dismiss Fernandes’ vision of a 40,000-capacity stadium as a bizarre and misguided pipe dream, given QPR’s relatively modest fan base. They fail to understand the scope of his rebranding project, which is every bit as radical as Flavio Briatore’s despite the more touchy feely style.Football, QPR and the London landscape are changing rapidly and over the next few years are likely to change even more. A state-of-the-art stadium and leisure complex in an overhauled area of west/north-west London, which is home to high-profile players from parts of the world where the Premier League (which Rangers hope to be back in by then) is massive, would be a huge attraction – and extremely profitable. It would also mean the end of QPR as we know it, which for some will equate to a Wimbledon-style killing of their club and for others will be necessary progress given Rangers’ limited growth potential while they remain at Loftus Road.Either way, it’s a project Fernandes and co remain determined to press ahead with. West London Sport Yeah, that's sort of what I've been saying/posting for the last, almost, two years now. This is just what we need, a £15m loan added to our books, to go with our uncommitted players. Uncommitted on the pitch, but I'm sure Bosingwa, Park and others are committed to receiving their full pay, so maybe their commitment isn't up for question at all. I was worried that the director's salaries wouldn't be paid due to the absolute cock up that they've made of our time in the Premiership and the losses they've accrued doing so, but with this additional £15m, I'm sure they'll receive all of it, especially as the bank is so confident in them to loan them this money, it states that it practically endorses their efforts so far. If the player's are being expected to go onto performance related contracts, why shouldn't Beard and the rest of the board do the same? And if Tune already has a financial relationship with this bank from it's other businesses why does it need to test it with this 'little' £15m loan? Maybe the stadium will form another new venture for Tune upon which the new stadium will be borrowed against in order for it's costs to be met and alleviate the financial burden from the club as to meet fair play restrictions? £15m is an undervaluation as well for the club's assets so it seems more like a set up for a much larger loan for a much larger stadium, which I fear is beginning to drift away from W12. The Tune lot are snake oil salesmen, along with Bhattia who is also, as proven several times, a con man who'll lie to our faces to suit his PR purposes. It's great having these billionnaire genius' in charge.
|
|
|
Post by saphilip on Apr 17, 2013 14:22:41 GMT
Question - do we need a new stadium right now?
I know we might need to expand and LR is cramped, but hell - we are a modest club with modest tradition and honours list with an average gate of around 16-17k that has just about been relegated.
Surely we have other priorities, such as dumping the passengers, getting promoted and avoiding a Portsmouth, Coventry or Bradford City scenario?
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Apr 17, 2013 14:44:51 GMT
a lot of our support think tony is some sort of messiah, but he will be our downfall. fans say he is better than what we had in the past, well, those in the past ONLY skimmed the cream off the top, including ecclestone/briatore. briatore didnt try to re brand QPR, its why the word 'boutique' was used, he tried to change loftus rd for his flunkies, not change it from its roots. tf will strip the soul out of this club, starting with a new stadium, maybe a kit change here and there, a debt here and there, and some more promises to keep you happy, whilst the 'support' waters down into a unrecognisable crowd of popcorn eaters with westfield bags and a combined ticket to go bowling after the game. fernandes is not a messiah...he is a very naughty boy. I agree and he's shown he's a betting man as well, which I hope to God that QPR won't be exposed as involved in any kind of betting scandal/fraud in years to come.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Apr 17, 2013 14:59:37 GMT
Yeah, except it looks like the wonga has gone instead, mate! ;D
Me, I subscribe to the Paisley Doctrine. Any problems, stick the ball in the net and talk about the options later.
Nothing else ever works.
|
|
|
Post by eastranger on Apr 17, 2013 15:46:28 GMT
I don't want the club I support to be little more than a vehicle for a group of millionaires to make investment inroads into a future property, leisure and entertainment empire in west London.
I don't want my team hitched to a shed-load of private capital land speculation marketed as 'gentrification' that serves, as it has elsewhere in the capital, to only enrich a privileged few at the expense of the city as a whole.
I don't want QPR to be reduced to a glitzy bauble in some vertically-branded corporate monolith. I want us to have the sort of identity that we feel beating inside us on the walk from the station to South Africa Rd, not the sort that involves us having our badge stamped on Coldplay concert tickets and Westfield sales promotions. I want us to have values and a communal history that we can sing about with pride, not just commodify and flog.
There's enough wrong with modern elite-level football as it is. I'd rather slug it out in league two with our sense of belief and connection to the club still intact, rather than watch us win the champion's league as some empty hedge fund vassal with our 'spirituality ruined' - because if I did want the latter, why wouldn't I just up sticks and start supporting Real Madrid, Barcelona or Man United?
I don't ever want to stop supporting my club. I just want to fight for it.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Apr 17, 2013 16:12:52 GMT
Sheer poetry! Sublime
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Apr 17, 2013 17:13:17 GMT
eastranger
That is superb!
I have never doubted that TF etc. would stay but I am becoming increasingly concerned to their ambitions.
The formation of a break away club (QPR FC?) is beginning to look a possibility, but would not be accepoted by a large number of supporters. Especially as they would probably have to start as low as the league beneath Wembley!
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Apr 17, 2013 18:08:46 GMT
I don't want the club I support to be little more than a vehicle for a group of millionaires to make investment inroads into a future property, leisure and entertainment empire in west London. I don't want my team hitched to a shed-load of private capital land speculation marketed as 'gentrification' that serves, as it has elsewhere in the capital, to only enrich a privileged few at the expense of the city as a whole. I don't want QPR to be reduced to a glitzy bauble in some vertically-branded corporate monolith. I want us to have the sort of identity that we feel beating inside us on the walk from the station to South Africa Rd, not the sort that involves us having our badge stamped on Coldplay concert tickets and Westfield sales promotions. I want us to have values and a communal history that we can sing about with pride, not just commodify and flog. There's enough wrong with modern elite-level football as it is. I'd rather slug it out in league two with our sense of belief and connection to the club still intact, rather than watch us win the champion's league as some empty hedge fund vassal with our 'spirituality ruined' - because if I did want the latter, why wouldn't I just up sticks and start supporting Real Madrid, Barcelona or Man United? I don't ever want to stop supporting my club. I just want to fight for it. I like that In 1966 I left my City of Destruction behind and headed off towards the Celestial City. I don't know where that is exactly but there is a shining light hanging over it and I can just make out my QPR badge. I know if I stay on this path, whatever trials lie in the way that I will get there in the end - at least that's my hope. There will of course be temptations along the way and at times I will find myself walking on this path with people that profess to be heading towards that same light but I know that as soon as we get to Vanity Fair that they will be gone - but I will still have faith and stay on this path. With many apologies to The Pilgrims Progress (1678)and not a little help from a can of Stella.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Apr 17, 2013 18:30:05 GMT
As I said earlier on the thread, we'll end up overtaken by Brentford, and it seems the majority on here would be happy with that. Slugging it out in League 2 . FFS.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Apr 17, 2013 18:34:37 GMT
I guess there could be a middle ground between what many QPR fans would want - and what our beloved, all-caring owners might announce.
Where will this new stadium be? How big will it be?
And then details like design, etc.
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Apr 17, 2013 18:34:55 GMT
As I said earlier on the thread, we'll end up overtaken by Brentford, and it seems the majority on here would be happy with that. Slugging it out in League 2 . FFS. better that than not having a team to support
|
|
obk
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by obk on Apr 17, 2013 18:42:25 GMT
Yeah, except it looks like the wonga has gone instead, mate! ;D Me, I subscribe to the Paisley Doctrine. Any problems, stick the ball in the net and talk about the options later. Nothing else ever works. Personally I'm going the ostrich way and sticking my head into the sand!
|
|
|
Post by eastranger on Apr 17, 2013 18:46:34 GMT
Thanks ingham, terryb and alfaranger! Was on my way out when I read the Dave McIntyre story, and all those emotions sort of rolled out at once. I actually wrote a (very friendly) letter to Fernandes and Amit Bhatia almost a year ago, when news of the planned new stadium first emerged, expressing similar sentiments about what it means and how it feels to support QPR, and basically tried to explain why I thought that if we did move to a new ground, it shouldn't be named after a corporate sponsor - even if that meant lower revenues and ultimately perhaps less success on the pitch. I was trying to sketch out that supposed dilemma between 'success' and 'nostalgia', and argue that if that's the way these kind of things have to be debated, I'll take nostalgia every time. Part of what I wrote: Some demand to know what’s more important: building a team that in the long run can comfortably survive among the premiership’s mega-bucks and even break into the European elite where the money gets all the more dizzying, or stand by forlornly and watch our club slide back into the minnow-heap, all because we were more concerned with nostalgia than reality.
Success and money or sentiment and nostalgia? My answer is sentiment and nostalgia every time, a thousand times over. Because when I really think about it, when I really pick apart the experience of being a QPR supporter, of having this club as part of my life, the actual results are pretty meaningless. So is the global, Sky-sponsored corporate cash-cow side of the game. I want QPR to win and I want us to thrive, but only because of my emotional relationship with the club – and what happens to that relationship if the nostalgia and sentiment and emotion, all of which are concentrated in the identity of the club’s home and stadium, are stripped away?
What matters to me is the history of my family’s love for the club (when my father first moved to Britain he lived in Ealing, and chose QPR as his local team over Chelsea – partly as a way to bond with his newly-adopted country), the feeling I get walking down South Africa road before a game, the same familiar programme-sellers (I was one once!), the same familiar burger stands, the feeling of excitement in my stomach as I see the floodlights and hear the beginning of ‘Papa’s got a brand new pigbag’, the collective experience of standing and singing with tens of thousands of people I don’t know but feel utterly connected to, the sense that amid all the froth and frippery of the modern game, there’s something real there that I can still be plugged into – a link between team and place that hasn’t yet succumbed to corporate logos, hasn’t yet been entirely commodified. Yes, it’s a type of nostalgia, it’s what I love QPR for, and it’s all I want from the club.
The previous majority owners of the club tried to strip that away and offered us conventional, plastic-wrapped ‘boutique’ glory in return, but they’ve never had that feeling of excitement in their stomach I get on the tube to White City, or the pounding I felt when Jamie Mackie scored that third goal against Liverpool, and they’ll never understand what it means. The Glazers have never had that feeling at Manchester United, nor Sheikh al-Mansour at City. Arsenal’s owners aren’t as bad but when I sat in the Emirates on New Year’s Eve in the home stands (a Gunners-supporting friend got me a ticket) and stared at the beautiful, soulless, utterly silent and morose stadium around me, I felt first angry and then sad for the Arsenal fans because they must have had that feeling once (at least the ones who aren’t corporate tourists) and now it’s been taken away from them too, replaced with by £60 tickets, announcements that ‘the second half will begin in three minutes’ as if this was a theatre performance, a stadium with the atmosphere of a library where everyone gets up to leave ten minutes before the end, and an artificial attempt by the club at top-down ‘Arsenalisation’ (surely the most horrible word in football history) by printing club-approved ‘fan banners’ to drape over the stands (as long as they don’t get in the way of sponsor logos). We must never become like that, because otherwise we will just become another, weaker version of everyone else. No reply, of course! I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that it's a wider problem than just QPR. These latest developments are obviously part of a much broader trend at the top echelons of the game, but the more it continues the harder I find it to understand what ties me to the club. My passion for QPR is completely undimmed, but if we continue down this route for much longer, I'm not sure whether I'll be able to bring myself to pay fifty-odd quid every other week to come and cheer on one corporate brand who are playing another corporate brand. The thought of being severed from QPR like that breaks my heart. And I don't want to just sit back and watch that scenario unfold. I've joined QPR 1st, I try and contribute to the messageboard occasionally - which is a brilliant way of fostering community and a voice amongst supporters - but I don't know what else can be done. Unless things tip over the edge and there's some sort of breaking point and more people start considering something radical - like terryb suggests. Though I do know, or at least I think, that this is a discussion worth having - Fernandes owns the club, but the club's value is at least in part derived from its history, identity and support. That's us, which means we don't have to be passive recipients of whatever decisions are made by the board - we can think of alternatives and struggle for them.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Apr 17, 2013 19:02:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Apr 17, 2013 20:26:09 GMT
From Soccernet.com:
QPR owner Tony Fernandes hopes to have some "good news" about the club's search for a new stadium within a fortnight.
GettyImages Loftus Road has the smallest capacity in the Premier League
• Smith: Path to redemption
The struggling Premier League club made the news on Tuesday when it emerged that a £15 million loan had been taken out against their assets, including current stadium Loftus Road, with Barclays Bank in Hong Kong.
But Fernandes took to Twitter on Tuesday morning to explain his decision to borrow money.
Loan for qpr is for new stadium. Next 2 weeks will be hopefully good news. But work is starting. We will not say anymore on stadium.
— Tony Fernandes (@tonyfernandes) April 17, 2013
Loftus Road is currently the smallest in the Premier League with a capacity of just 18,439 although Fernandes has long-held ambitions to deliver a new home for the Hoops which has previously been described by chief executive Philip Beard as "part of a hub of a wider entertainment destination."
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Apr 17, 2013 20:27:15 GMT
As I said earlier on the thread, we'll end up overtaken by Brentford, and it seems the majority on here would be happy with that. Slugging it out in League 2 . FFS. your'e obsessed with brentford jon. did you get a bad pint down there or something? get busy you bee's. ;D
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Apr 18, 2013 13:10:42 GMT
Mr Woomer Wodney of local council fame says it's Wormwood Scrubs inc Linford's bit. Don't know how much of the scrubs and presumably not the prison.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Apr 18, 2013 14:45:06 GMT
Yes, goes for me too, eastranger. I was very local, it was my Club when I walked into LR for the first time. My dad was a northerner, loved football, but never thought to take me to LR, wanted to see the top sides, and players, so I was taken to Clubs not suitable to mention on a family website!
That sort of thing is a very unusual combination of completely elusive - supporters in toto can never be truly 'organised' because the whole thing is personal - and very powerful just for that reason.
It is sad about the new 'Highbury'. I couldn't take Arsenal seriously - even as the business it pretends to be - when it called its headquarters - leaving aside the the fact that it is the Club's HOME - after someone ELSE'S business.
Sheer pride. Find it hard to believe Branson would paint Pan Am all over his airlines, JUST TO GET A LITTLE MORE MONEY. When 'more money' is the aim of everything, you realise how empty it is. We have £40 million a year at the moment (though probably not for long).
Doesn't seem to be making much difference. They're running up huge losses - as their predecessors were - and THAT hasn't made much difference either.
And we still 'need' more. We need a 45,000 capacity ground. If that is possible, why not a 100,000 capacity ground, based on the vast revenue it will generate. If their talent is bankable, Fernandes & Co should be able to raise the cash.
Even Arsenal didn't do that. It wasn't the Club's talent that was bankable at all. It was the 45,000 supporters they already had who were bankable, and a season ticket waiting list of 15,000-20,000.
The supporters are the Club in the most hard-nosed, financially rock solid way imaginable.
That is why I think Jon Doeman's otherwise understandable anxiety is misplaced. Just losing ever more embarrassingly large sums of money won't keep us out of the lower leagues. Just talking about a 45,000 capacity STADIUM - rather than demonstrating the long term footballing know-how and brilliance that will produce 45,000 SUPPORTERS - won't make the slightest difference.
If the stadium is so important, why are so many Clubs with Grounds bigger than Fulham's (let alone QPR's) in the lower leagues, while Fulham are still in the top flight?
Arsenal won many titles at the old Highbury. But they wanted more money, and all they talked about was how much they earned in the new ground, and what a good deal it was, and how 'big' it was, and how very clever the Board had been.
Since they moved, Clubs with attendances barely more than 45,000 have won the title. Not to mention one Club with a Ground very much bigger than Arsenal's new one. Arsenal have won nothing. Nothing shameful in that. They won one title in the 35 years between 1953 and 1989, and there is no reason why that couldn't happen again.
They may be on the brink of an Arsenal golden era, of course. But if that is the case, and they mop up all the titles in the next 20 years the way Ferguson is doing at the moment, what of City, United, Chelsea and the others, some of them running up enormous losses in order not to win.
QPR's efforts to buy success under Wright and his successors brought 15 years of struggle, often relegation struggles, and our two seasons in the top flight haven't changed that.
Football is not business. Where competitiveness is concerned, business is a joke compared to football. If there are 150 business in the same field, ALL of them can become successful. You're as successful as you say you are.
A competition is entirely different. That's why these people are so unspeakably useless. Someone MUST win, the authorities have set the competition up that way. If it was left to the people running the Clubs, no-one would.
To investors, the Club isn't the business, that's why they're set up to lose money all the time. THEY - the investors and the managers and players - are the business. The Club is the resource that they pump money out of, like dredging machinery brings up gravel from a gravel pit.
If that is what dredging machinery does.
That is why it is a Club. They keep on trying to repackage the Clubs as brands, but they simply don't work that way.
We call it OUR club not because we imagine we own it, but because we belong to it. That is what a Club of THIS kind is. The owners may treat it like a nightclub or a strip club, just a source of cash and a commodity to be traded.
But that is just what it is to them. And we've outlived all of them. They're all gone, and we're still here.
A football club is an antibusiness. It has no customers. Where a customer will use a business on the basis of quality, price or convenience, supporters continue to support their Clubs even when they are none of these things - the best, the cheapest, the most convenient.
You could hardly describe QPR as any of those things. But we are not customers, so they don't matter. When we went down to the Third tier, the Club achieved RECORD season ticket sales. THAT'S what is really going on.
It is impossible for investors to grasp that sort of thing. Even if they had a certain feeling for it, their investment puts them in a cage. They want money out, and that is what they are focused on. When they get the money, they clear off, and are usually never seen anywhere near the Club again.
That's the real 'long term'. Gone.
We're not here for the money. All the others invariably are.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Apr 18, 2013 18:16:04 GMT
West London Sport â€@westlondonsport 53s Warren Farm: A quick to the proposed new training ground for #QPR www.westlondonsport.com/?p=51056mmentWarren Farm: A quick guide to QPR’s proposed training facility warrenfarm 18/04/2013 By David McIntyre It’s almost 18 months since West London Sport revealed that Warren Farm was QPR’s preferred choice for a new training ground. Next week the club are expected to get the green light to begin redeveloping the site. Here’s a guide to how things stand at the moment. What is Warren Farm? The Warren Farm sports centre is on Windmill Lane, Southall, fairly near Osterley Park, and is the biggest sports ground in the borough of Ealing but has been in a state of disrepair for some time. Warren Farm is in a poor state. Warren Farm is in a bad state. Ealing Council selected Rangers as its partner to redevelop the facility in the spring of last year and the club submitted a planning application in December. Why the delay? There hasn’t actually been a substantial delay. A process like this can take considerable time. QPR’s stance has also been that they would prefer to address any issues at the start of the project rather than further down the line. However, a number of objections were raised by residents and community groups during the council’s required period of public consultation. What kind of objections? It has been claimed that the council is effectively ‘gifting’ the site to QPR rather than selling it for a profit. There have also been doubts over Rangers’ assurances that the new facility will be more than just a training ground and will be available for substantial community use. And there were significant concerns expressed about the structure of the proposed new site and the lay-out of the surrounding area, not to mention the potential noise. What has been QPR’s response to this? From the start, Rangers have been adamant that the award-winning QPR In The Community Trust will take a leading role in ensuring that Warren Farm provides significant benefit to the local community. Furthermore, last month the club submitted revised plans to the council in response to local concerns. What changes were made? The proposed height of the indoor centre has been reduced by 1.2 metres and the planned location of floodlights has been moved to try to reduce their impact. The number of proposed car parking spaces for the new site was reduced from 712 to 555. Plans also now include a new pedestrian crossing on Windmill Lane and improved cycle routes. In response to objections about potential noise, plans now include operating hours. Warren Farm as it looks now. Warren Farm as it looks now. And how it could look in 2015. And how it could look in 2015. Who will pay for Warren Farm? QPR will be responsible for building, maintaining and operating the new facility at no extra cost to the council or taxpayers. Why does the council want QPR to take over the site? Why don’t they just sell it off? In response to criticism over this issue, both parties point out that, at a time of budgetary cuts, other councils are closing similar facilities. In 2011, Ealing Council identified the need for external investment in order to revamp Warren Farm, so set about finding an appropriate partner. QPR, who want a training facility to meet Premier League and academy standards, and currently have a vibrant community trust, are therefore seen as an obvious choice. What facilities will be at Warren Farm? QPR’s proposals include some distinction between club facilities and those for community use. The club will have a state-of-the-art training centre, including three pitches for senior players and six for academy players. There will be an indoor and outdoor artificial pitch, one show pitch and floodlighting. There will also be an area accommodating players and staff that will be far superior to the building at Rangers’ current training ground in Harlington. For community use, there will be up to 11 football pitches, three cricket wickets, changing rooms, brand new meeting and social areas and multi-function rooms. There will also be access to both the indoor and outdoor artificial pitches and car parking. All of these would be available at a charge set by the council. Most importantly, the club, led by the QPR In The Community Trust, say they are dedicated to ensuring that Warren Farm becomes a hub for community sport and participation rather than simply a training ground. What happens now? The council are due to consider the revised submission at a planning committee meeting next Wednesday, 24 April, and are expected to approve the plans. QPR intend to begin building on the site this autumn and open the new facility towards the end of 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Apr 18, 2013 18:49:43 GMT
I wonder if the Sultan of Brunei has had any objections to the proposed site.
|
|
|
Post by bradfieldhoop on Apr 18, 2013 22:03:46 GMT
whilst I understand we are all entitled to comment on the running of our club the harsh reality is and always has been that unless you are the one putting up, shut up. None of us know TF or the Mittal's but given a choice I would rather have them at the top than the majority of our previous owners. My old man was Commercial director for Jim Gregory and responsible for the omniturf and exec boxes and although JG was Mr QPR one of his oft used phrases was "sod them,who writes the cheques"--so by all means have a view and question them if you want but ultimately we have no more say as supporters as a very minor shareholder has in a multi national--all we can hope for is that we get lucky and have owners that care and so far,although a little misguided,I do think we have one.
|
|