|
Post by Jo-Onenil on Jun 6, 2012 21:40:48 GMT
Me too! Don't want us to be some rich cozy bastards. We Are QPR FFS!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 23:28:31 GMT
Share with them no way Pedro as del boy would say, if that happened my local non league team would find themselves with a new fan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 5:48:57 GMT
I would rather have more QPR fans at home games whether it meant sharing with another team or not I know most fans would be against the idea but I think in the future more teams will look at sharing stadiums just to help them survive financially
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jun 7, 2012 9:09:36 GMT
The thing they're not mentioning is the common denominator. Any old scheme will do as a pretext for selling Loftus Road. That's the sort of thing they can do. Sell off the assets, keep the cash.
Someone will pocket the proceeds of the sale, that's guaranteed, unlike 'competing with Manchester United'. We can be sure they know how to line their pockets. Just as we can be sure they'll never get anywhere near Manchester United.
They know how to do property deals and share deals, just as they know nothing whatsoever about football. No track record of success, and NO track record of 'growing' anyone's 'fanbase', whatever THAT means.
What is it about QPR? Any old bunch of nobodies turns up, comes up with any old rubbish, any old half-baked scheme decked out in the latest jargon, the details of which fluctuate from day to day, then when they're gone, having learned nothing, achieved nothing, and changed nothing, except for the worse, another pack of identikit nonentities are at the door talking the same old claptrap.
What WILL the punters swallow? A 45,000 capacity stadium. Has that died the death now. Oh, no, hang on, I know what they'll say. 'Well, it is still our long term ambition blah blah blah'. But it's time to cash in and clear out? 45,000 sounds stupid? OK, er, what about a groundshare, then? Wonderful. Imagine how Ferguson will tremble when he hears QPR have CHANGED THEIR ADDRESS.
Why do people with no idea about football think football stadiums are ideal for other activities? If you want to host rock concerts, build a suitable auditorium, and build a suitable stadium for a football club. If you want a shopping centre, build one.
Inner city football clubs surrounded by shops and pubs and residential areas are relocated to out of town wasteland.
Why? To sell the ground because the inner city site is valuable. But when it's QPR, oh, we need all those inner city facilities other Clubs have left behind. Success has nothing to do with being near a shopping centre or a housing development. Being out of town, in town, near a station, far from a station.
But any old explanation will do. We're so big, and have such great potential, we can't even own a ground of our own. We can't even be the sole tenants, THAT'S what they REALLY think of QPR's potential. And how can two Clubs function effectively in a groundshare in the English league. The landlord would have to run them both. How would a Club doing relatively well benefit from sharing with one which isn't, and which is losing money hand over fist every season? And which needs to sell the Ground, or mortgage it to speculators, to make ends meet? When Noades had two Clubs sharing, BOTH of them were responsible for ALL the rent. Naturally. He wasn't going to risk HIS revenue trusting people who lose millions or tens of millions of their 'own' Club's money every year.
These clowns can't even run ONE club. What makes them think they can run two?
What is it about sharing a ground that will make QPR's fanbase grow? Why would it? Do more supporters attend matches because someone else plays there every other week?
It does tell us how much money our RICH investors intend to put into QPR. Nothing. Not one penny. They are here to get as much money OUT of QPR as they can, like the last lot, and all the others. A groundshare with Wasps would be good, though, wouldn't it? They haven't had a ground of their own since Wright sold it off donkeys years ago.
Bet Wasps they pack them in at Wycombe or wherever they are now. Far more than QPR. 45,000 or so, I expect.
And what did Wright propose when he sold off Wasps ground? The sale of Loftus Road. The richer the investors are, the more revenue they require, and the more they use the Club's assets - not their own, naturally - to get it.
Why do they need more revenue when they're absolutely loaded, they need a bigger ground, they need to move, they need to share, they need shops, they need everything except the one thing they don't have and will never, ever have.
Talent. Experience. Know-how.
Will our new 'home' have a football pitch? Can't see the point, really, as they haven't the first idea what to do on this one.
What is it about these people? Why don't any of them ever come to football clubs to LEARN. They know nothing, they've been here five minutes, no background, no talent, nothing, but they're making one decision after another from day one. Then, when things go wrong, are they rubbish? No, they sack the manager. Who appointed that fool?
Winners are rare. But losers are all the same. Same big talk, same tired old excuses.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 7, 2012 9:19:47 GMT
Wow that's a bit harsh on Tony, Amit and Beard. Don't forget about Mike Rigg who is very experienced in football.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jun 7, 2012 9:48:42 GMT
What I was getting at was people who knew the game and transformed the football clubs they worked for, Rory. Not by losing the Clubs' money, or selling off its assets, but by winning matches.
Matt Busby, Alf Ramsey, Herbert Chapman, Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley, Don Revie, Brian Clough. Who know the game well enough to get the players to play it. Not an easy task, as we know from watching QPR. Perhaps we've got it wrong. Perhaps they're trying not to play well, but they're just too good ;D.
As far as I know, none of those successful managers owned significant shares, did property deals or moneylending. They worked for the Club on the basis that it was a football Club, and that's all. If it isn't successful, fine, it has supporters, not customers, it has a home, and the League is designed to allow Clubs to fail on the pitch without failing off it.
The great managers resembled supporters far more than 'investors' ever do, although we are in a class of our own compared even to them. We belong to the Club, because that's what a Club is. Investors act as if the Club belongs to them, because they own shares in a holding company. They certainly control their own company, but it's the Clubs that appear in the League tables, and the Clubs which are successes or failures, not the holding companies, which change from owner to owner, and year to year.
And it is the Clubs which lose money with these financial masterminds running them.
If football clubs really were businesses, they would have vanished a century ago. It's because they aren't, and their support - and the Clubs' identities as Clubs - are perennial, that there is always money for investors to take out, that Clubs CAN run up losses for decades at a stretch.
The supporters are always there. They cover them. If supporters were customers, we'd shop at Clubs which were better, cheaper or more convenient, as customers do. But we support QPR despite the fact it isn't any of these things.
That isn't business.
Those great managers knew how to get results on the pitch with very limited resources, especially true in the case of Clough and Ramsey, but it is also the case with of Shankly at Liverpool.
When it was time for them to go, they simply left. They didn't pocket £40 million, leave enormous losses behind, or try to push the Clubs out into a shopping development of their own, merely to line their own pockets.
So the Clubs benefited as a result. Not every Club gets such people, not every Club can. The League is designed to ensure that it doesn't happen. Every club but one is intended to fail. And with investors around, well, the failure is just more glaringly obvious, illuminated, as it is, with the vast financial losses that they are incapable of doing anything about.
Except to make them worse.
Great thread, as discussions about new grounds usually are.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jun 7, 2012 10:36:10 GMT
I wouldnt object if we looked at a ground share as our stadium, as much as I love the old shoebox, is too small. Craven Cottage would be the obvious choice. Is this not worth a ban? Even S.hitman wouldn't have said something that bad! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jun 7, 2012 14:42:57 GMT
Here in OZ ground share is the norm. The two Aussie Rules teams in Perth use the same ground. This means a game at the stadium every week. During the week the stadium's large rooms are hired out, as they are at cricket's WACA. Our football team, Perth Glory, shares it's ground with our Super Rugby team. It makes for good use of grounds.
Having said all that, that's not the English way. Each team has it's own ground. You need that to keep your own fan base. The option of rugby also grates. Football and rugby crowds are different, and expect different things from their venues. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with having shops built into the venue, but ones relevant to the venue such as sports shops, food venues, pubs and the like.
I would also suggest that we build a venue of say 30,000 but with the ability to be expanded should our fan base grow.
|
|
|
Post by grillr on Jun 7, 2012 18:10:21 GMT
What's the obsession with an Academy all about??? Who in UK has a decent academy regularly churning out first team players nowadays..... I can't think of any at all. Days of "Fergie's babes" or Crewe supplying future England players are a distant memory. Even if we produced a decent player they'd just get poached. I'd rather invest money in a crack team of international scouts (or robbing players from other teams' academies).
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 7, 2012 18:20:39 GMT
What's the obsession with an Academy all about??? Football.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 7, 2012 18:26:36 GMT
So you don't want to see any home grown QPR players make into the team then??? Acadamy's are very important, especially with the new financial fair play rules coming in.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jun 7, 2012 19:34:28 GMT
What's the obsession with an Academy all about??? Who in UK has a decent academy regularly churning out first team players nowadays..... I can't think of any at all. Days of "Fergie's babes" or Crewe supplying future England players are a distant memory. Even if we produced a decent player they'd just get poached. I'd rather invest money in a crack team of international scouts (or robbing players from other teams' academies). Obsession? You honestly consider having decent facilities to encourage kids to play football with the hope of joining an academy ranked setup to simply be an obsession? Crewe are still bringing through very good players by the way, on a shie string and they are taught to play the correct way as well as live life in a correct way. Having a decent youth setup transcends getting free kids playing in your first team. Having a proper setup benefits all players at all levels. If there is an obsession, for me, it's to get the flock out of Harlington ASAP coz it's a shithole and encourages nobody to join us. Why do you think Beard had a model of the new facilities to show new signings? Must be an obsession.
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Jun 8, 2012 10:04:45 GMT
i am fully agreeing with finding a new ground but question if the reasons are valid.
getting a larger ground so we can multi use it for other functions such as concerts , etc.
as i remember we used to use loftus road for that in the past such as the maguigan fight etc. so if it is extra revenue for that reason there is nothing wrong with loftus road.
if it is for extending our support we need to get a side in the higher reaches of the premiere league first regularly to then wait for fulham/chelsea fans to change allegiance.lol really you may say but that is what will likely happen if we become consistent enough to be the number 1 side in west london.
otherwise we will have a 30.40 thousand seater stadium barely half full bearing in mind this recession is likely to last at least another 10 years or at least no-one is gonna have any money for at least 10 years because of crippling debts , lack of pay etc,etc,etc you get what i am saying more people unemployed etc.
|
|
|
Post by gthompson66 on Jun 8, 2012 21:27:06 GMT
If we end up being tenants instead of owning our own stadium it will end in disaster.
We're not gong to fill a 45,000 seater, it takes generations to 'grow the fanbase'. Is there any way of expanding LR to 25,000 - surely that's not beyond modern engineering? Does anyone know if this is even an option? I seem to remember talk of shifting SA Road stand back a few years ago?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 22:04:55 GMT
What's the obsession with an Academy all about??? Who in UK has a decent academy regularly churning out first team players nowadays. Southampton, they may not keep them all but they still produce them, Man u still produce there own as well Welbeck Cleverly there most recent, plus every footballer playing today would have come from an academy, so therefore academys are very important, that's why losing Sterling was a kick in the teeth, he would be a crowd favourite if he played for us now, not just because he is a top player but because he come through the ranks.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jun 10, 2012 15:04:44 GMT
I agree that being tenants - and groundsharing for that matter - would be a disaster.
What would it say about us? We're not even worth a home of our home? The Club is incapable of paying its way in a property it OWNS OUTRIGHT.
Don't all these boardroom clever dicks own their own homes? When they find an empty seat, do they invite any old loser to stay the night because it will keep their costs down, and because renting out the empty bedrooms to the homeless makes better use of resources and brings in much needed revenue.
Supposedly they 'represent' QPR. Funny the Club always loses money when it has such representatives, and funny that they always seem to make it when they head off into the sunset.
When the rubbish players are signed, the crap teams are put together at enormous cost, and the failed managers are paid off, do they pay for all the mistakes they make, the strikers who can't score, the defenders who can't tackle, the coaches who can't win matches at their own expense.
Yeah, right.
If Loftus Road is worth someone else having, its worth QPR keeping. If it isn't worth anything to QPR, it isn't worth anything to anyone else.
When they're making a profit for a decade or more. When they've demonstrated that 'the only way is up' for a decade or more. When the Club is a byword for football, creativity, excitement, success, packed houses and long, long waiting lists for tickets for a decade or more, sure.
Just to break it up, sell off the assets, and line the pockets of people who have more than enough money but who are greedy for more - not for QPR, but for themselves - no thanks.
Crewe Alexandra, now there's an interesting Club. Ah, but they aren't successful, people say. Neither are we. Neither are Everton, Villa, Newcastle, Liverpool. Or in recent years, Arsenal.
The only thing that there's more of in football is overrated, overpriced, underperforming crap. The crap doesn't achieve more and more, it just costs more and more.
As our ever-increasing losses proclaim. If they believe they have the talent to transform the Club, why not write the losses off? The soaring share price as the Club becomes a world player will get it all back and more.
If they did, they'd take the losses incurred by buying the biggest stars, winning the titles, and letting all the big money QPR's golden future will bring pay for it all.
If bigger grounds would make City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal better than United, why haven't they built them?
The Clubs can't afford it, and the investors won't take the chance. These Clubs simply aren't successful enough to make it worth the risk, they've been trying for decades to overhaul the top dogs, first Liverpool, then United, and they've failed. And Liverpool and United have been failures when the other was king.
the Clubs just haven't got the money, and there isn't enough success to go round in football to provide it.
But even if they did all outbuild United, according to the logic that you simply build bigger and do better, United would build a bigger ground still - following the same logic - and they'd all be back at Square One, still unsuccessful, still unable to compete, but losing even MORE money than most of them are now.
And because only one Club at a time can win, it doesn't make sense for them, any more than it does for us, to build a much bigger ground - even the 45,000 'giant' our 'visionaries' seem to be hastily backing off from now - on the off-chance that we would benefit from it to a disproportionate extent.
If six Clubs build much bigger grounds - big enough to make a difference if they're always full - the logic remains self-defeating, since at least 5 of them would always fail.
And we should bear in mind that taking over a small Club doesn't proclaim big ambition. If you want to spend big and build big, take over a bigger Club, and build THAT up to the point where it is top dog.
But they wouldn't know how to. They wouldn't even know where to begin.
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 10, 2012 16:42:24 GMT
I can understand why a lot of fans would be against ground sharing with Fulham but we have to be realistic. Our ground as much as we call it home is too small and inadequate for the Premiership and to facilitate new supporters.
Yes ideally it would be nice to move into a spanking state of the art new stadium but that appears to be a long way off until that happens I still support the idea of ground sharing with Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jun 10, 2012 18:05:05 GMT
I can understand why a lot of fans would be against ground sharing with Fulham but we have to be realistic. Our ground as much as we call it home is too small and inadequate for the Premiership and to facilitate new supporters. Yes ideally it would be nice to move into a spanking state of the art new stadium but that appears to be a long way off until that happens I still support the idea of ground sharing with Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 10, 2012 19:05:19 GMT
I could live with Fulham being OUR Tenants... I could maybe at least in theory accept a shared stadium with Fulham co-owned or owned by the council as they do overseas. But No. No. NO. QPR being the tenants of Fulham at Craven Cottage. That way lie doom
(Caveat: If you told me that 100% guaranteed Loftus Road being knocked down. New Loftus Road with 35,000 seated being rebuilt...In 18 months. ANd no chance of QPR Fans being screwed as so many other club fans have been, we could discuss it)
Other than that. No.
If you believe in identity of a club...Perhaps even more than the hoops is the club location (within a few hundred yards.)
Next will be hearing the benefits of a merger with Fulham: Fulham Park Rangers or Queens Park Rangers Fulham... (or Wimbedon Rangers..)
I would prefer QPR to be in League Two than to have a merged club in the Premiership - even in europe. (And I remember saying this when the Wimbledon merger was on the front burner. And shamefully there were fan message board posters saying they'd rather be in the Premiership as a merged team)
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 10, 2012 20:45:52 GMT
You've gone on a ridiculous tangent and are living in the past. The idea to upgrade Loftus Road has already been dismissed anyway so there's no point discussing it.
The board have intentions, when funds become available, to build a new stadium and I believe they want to make that happen. First we need to build our fan base and I expect we have gained more fans from last season. That increased fan base can only be achieved realistically when we play at a bigger stadium.
Some of you seem to be bothered about a silly rivalry with a local team. I couldn't care less where we play.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jun 10, 2012 20:57:37 GMT
Colorado be OK?
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 10, 2012 21:03:29 GMT
Well I do care where we play, I'm very proud to call Loftus Road our home and I don't want to play in that dump on the riverside.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 10, 2012 21:23:16 GMT
When you REALLY think about it, does West London really three or four Professional clubs...Merge them into super team. A reluctance to do that is also just "living in the past"
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 10, 2012 23:59:38 GMT
Club mergers are usually done due to necessity not through choice. List the club mergers we've had over the past 50 years. I can't even think of one. London's population and the popularity of football indicates 4 clubs can easily survive in West London without a merger as the support crosses the capital and beyond. I don't believe the QPR board would ever consider a move. besides that would mean the consent of two teams. Do you think Fulham or Chelsea would consider such an idea? I seriously doubt it. Of course I'd rather see us redevelop Loftus Road but its not possible for reasons we all know about. You have to ask yourselves do you want the club to progress and move forward or not. Think about it logically: we ground share for a few seasons, increase our support and then move into a brand new state of the art stadium. Other clubs have had to make the same moves away from their spiritual homes. Colorado be OK? Now you're being silly.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jun 11, 2012 6:55:35 GMT
Club mergers are usually done due to necessity not through choice. List the club mergers we've had over the past 50 years. I can't even think of one. London's population and the popularity of football indicates 4 clubs can easily survive in West London without a merger as the support crosses the capital and beyond. I don't believe the QPR board would ever consider a move. besides that would mean the consent of two teams. Do you think Fulham or Chelsea would consider such an idea? I seriously doubt it. Of course I'd rather see us redevelop Loftus Road but its not possible for reasons we all know about. You have to ask yourselves do you want the club to progress and move forward or not. Think about it logically: we ground share for a few seasons, increase our support and then move into a brand new state of the art stadium. Other clubs have had to make the same moves away from their spiritual homes. Colorado be OK? Now you're being silly. You started it! As for new state of the art stadia, can you name any that have made this move and have become more successful or simply increased their fanbase? City have a new stadium but their success is solely down to the influx of money, nothing to do with the ground. United remain at their ground and were pipped on goal difference. Arsenal have won absolutely nothing since their move. Look at every other club that has new stadia, hardly any have increased their fanbase, in fact the dire straights lots of them are in is due directly to their move to a state of the stadium and much lower attendances. Reading increased their fanbase but it was promotion not the stadium that did that, relegation lost them a good few thousand, they'll be back again of course. Simply having a new shiney start of the art ground does not mean you will fill it, the evidence is out there. It certainly doesn't guarantee any sort of success, only money does that it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 11, 2012 6:57:20 GMT
Do you think Fulham or Chelsea would consider such an idea? I seriously doubt it. Whilst the fans wouldn't, if it provided an immediate return on shares then I'm sure the respective boards would consider it. Of course I'd rather see us redevelop Loftus Road but its not possible for reasons we all know about. You have to ask yourselves do you want the club to progress and move forward or not. Think about it logically: we ground share for a few seasons, increase our support and then move into a brand new state of the art stadium. Other clubs have had to make the same moves away from their spiritual homes. OK, you say think about this logically, but then say that we should ground share whilst we wait for our new stadium to be built. However at the start of the paragraph you state that Loftus Road cannot be redeveloped, so why should we ground share whilst waiting for a new stadium to be built? If Loftus Road can't be redeveloped, the new ground would logically have to be built elsewhere, so why not just stay at Loftus Road until it's ready? Why add in the expense of moving the entire club to a temporary home, when we could just stay where we are until the new ground is finished? What you suggest is illogical, immediately after you tell us to think logically! To borrrow your own phrase:
|
|
|
Post by gthompson66 on Jun 11, 2012 22:07:06 GMT
Groundsharing at Craven Cottage for a few years wont increase our fanbase, it'll do the opposite.
I've followed the Rs through thick and thin. I didnt go to the Vauxall Motors game but I do remember driving up to Peterborough one rainy Tuesday night when we got stuffed about 3-0, and that was pretty grim, but even compared to that I think I'd struggle to go down to Fulham week in week out.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jun 11, 2012 23:00:35 GMT
Who knows what the future holds. Makes more sense to me if we establish ourselves for 4-5 years as part of the solid second division of the Prem.
But I have taken May and June off up to now, off from thinking about Rs. I also need a summer break from it.
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 11, 2012 23:04:23 GMT
Craven Cottage holds 26,000, how is it illogical to propose a ground share at a bigger stadium until our own is built? The owners hope that our continued status as a Premiership club will attract more people to the ground. That can't be achieved whilst we play at a stadium that holds 18,000.
The reason why I mentioned Fulham is that it's not massive in capacity that would risk too many empty seats and closer for our fans to travel to.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 11, 2012 23:16:10 GMT
I think the fact it's foolham's stadium will drive some people away
|
|