|
Post by sharky on Dec 12, 2012 14:53:37 GMT
Around the world grounds are used week in week out by different football codes without a surface problem. It's now the norm to have football and a code like rugby using grounds as a co-share and restoring the grounds after each game to a very acceptable standard.
However I do understand that in England, like Rory says, ground shares are frowned upon.
Still think it makes good business/economic sense, which we may need if we go down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2012 15:03:50 GMT
artificial pitches are accepted in Europe nowadays, makes sense if you plan to ground share
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Dec 12, 2012 15:12:42 GMT
Not building a 45,000 seater stadium is economic sense, there isn't anyone to share with anyway. Quins have their own stadium and Saracens have just moved and Wasps have been here before.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Dec 12, 2012 15:20:50 GMT
Around the world grounds are used week in week out by different football codes without a surface problem. It's now the norm to have football and a code like rugby using grounds as a co-share and restoring the grounds after each game to a very acceptable standard. However I do understand that in England, like Rory says, ground shares are frowned upon. Still think it makes good business/economic sense, which we may need if we go down. I'd settle for some good business/economic sense regardless of whether or not we go down. Tony's already stated that the club needs to be fixed, so therefore Beard has obviously broken it with all the contracts he put together and stated he stood behind. Maybe get in a man who has experience in running a football club and dealing with agents in football rather than one to run a stadium that doesn't even exist and instead has allowed this squad to be put together on his watch.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 12, 2012 18:52:11 GMT
If the football club OWNED a vast site with innumerable retail and entertainment outlets, it might be a different matter.
But Beard pointed out some time ago that QPR wouldn't even own the GROUND.
So what difference would the revenue raised from all those different sources make to the Club.
None. The money would go into the pockets of the owners of the site.
That applies to groundsharing.
And it seems absurd to me - on the one hand - for a whole stream of 'investors' to talk about QPR as if it is a big Club in the making, a wealthy Club alongside the biggest spenders, with a set-up geared for success and all that entails, capable of filling a 45,000 capacity stadium for home games year in and year out - while on the other hand, they are whimpering pitifully about the Club's inability to pay its way.
Fine, if they are football geniuses, let's sweep all opposition aside. Let's see brilliant performances. The equivalent - at this level - of the string of amazing results the rejuvenated Gregory Third Division side enjoyed in the mid-sixties, where, on more or less successive Saturdays, we won 6-0 at home, 7-1 away and then 5-1 at home.
THAT was a superior side. It didn't last. And it never transformed the Club into a giant, or even a significantly larger Club, even when they almost won the Title itself.
But to suggest that the Club will get money from sources which will never belong to the Club when the Ground itself, the core factor in any revenue it enjoys, won't even belong to the Club, is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 12, 2012 19:15:10 GMT
Fernandes & Beard haven't got a clue and you can throw Taylor in the same hat.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 12, 2012 19:30:56 GMT
Two fold: Whether they really are clueless? And if they are, can they learn from mistakes they made, and things will change for the better?
For better or worse, someone other than me and you are going to own this club. And they could, I think, be a lot worse than what we currently have. (To put it mildly)...
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Dec 12, 2012 20:20:24 GMT
So we put up and shut up coz the nest mob might be worse?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 12, 2012 20:26:25 GMT
Well that's not exactly the approach I've been adopting!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 12, 2012 20:33:32 GMT
.... Maybe get in a man who has experience in running a football club and dealing with agents in football rather than one to run a stadium that doesn't even exist and instead has allowed this squad to be put together on his watch. [/quote] Surely the man who fits the description....
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Dec 12, 2012 20:36:19 GMT
Well, he is available, experienced, and knows how to do fan forums and fan forums. ;D
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 14, 2012 10:29:14 GMT
I see no difference between speculators who rip the Club off and speculators who say 'excuse me' before they do the same thing.
Whether they make a pretence of being friendly or whether they don't, a predator is a predator.
What counts is what they do. Who they do it to. And at whose expense.
The Club isn't losing money because the people using it mean well. The losses aren't an unfortunate mistake. A bit of bad luck. Investors don't pile debt upon debt by accident.
Losses show the Club's money being transferred to other people. If the chairman and the managers and players were MAKING money for the Club, the Club would show a profit, but that money would be the Club's money, not theirs.
So it is in their interest - all their interests - for the Club to lose money. Because the Club's losses end up in the pockets of the 'investors', managers and players.
That's why they aren't paid by results. If they were, the Club would be the beneficiary, and they would be the losers.
How else will talentless people can squeeze big money for themselves out of a small Club? The Club doesn't fail to make a profit because there is something wrong with the Club.
If they had to put their own money in, we wouldn't see them for dust. If every stupid decision, every inept player signed, every overpaid manager appointed cost THEM, there would be no more talk about 'investment', no more paying a manager £4.5 million even if he takes the Club down.
And it is nothing but talk. We've had millionaires and billionaires for decades, and the Club has never become big and profitable, let alone successful.
The Club is not a business. THEY are all businesses, but the Club isn't. It is a resource. As long as it has support, and league status at whatever level, it is a source of money for them.
In football, we have now reached a position where the authorities are trying to persuade the people running the Clubs to PERMIT the Clubs to make a profit, and to STOP simply pouring the Clubs' money down the drain.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 14, 2013 9:17:01 GMT
Bump a year!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2014 10:09:49 GMT
Flashback 3 Years
|
|