|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 13, 2012 11:42:01 GMT
Bump/Edit 11 years ago: QPR unlikely to ground-share, reveals Fernandes
Ian Cooper Wednesday, June 13, 2012 London 24Rangers chairman speaks out on stadium plans Tony Fernandes has indicated that QPR will not pursue plans to ground-share with another club. Rangers chairman Fernandes and chief executive Phil Beard are planning to move the club from their current home at Loftus Road which, with a capacity of just over 18,000, is the smallest stadium in the Premier League. Be ard last week insisted that a new ground would need to bring in revenue from as many sources as possible, hinting at the possibility of a multi-purpose venue in west London and not ruling out the prospect of teaming up with another club.A ground-share with neighbours Fulham has been mooted, but Fernandes believes that is unlikely to happen, suggesting that any such plans would be met with opposition from fans. “ The idea of a ground-share has not been mentioned to me,” Fernandes told London24.com. “Fundamentally in a business sense I think it’s a good idea.
“But what makes sense in business doesn’t always make sense emotionally, and I don’t think we would look to do that.”With the 2012-13 fixtures to be announced on Monday, Rangers boss Mark Hughes is already turning his thoughts to the new season. Hughes is understood to be lining up a move for England goalkeeper Robert Green, who departed West Ham United this week after failing to agree a new deal.
And ahead of the new campaign, Fernandes admits that QPR’s unlikely Premier League survival on the final day of last season will be remembered as a pivotal moment in the club’s history.“I always said that it did matter if we were relegated, the journey was set. Obviously it’s a lot easier to do things in the Premier League than the Championship,” he added.
“It wasn’t critical to stay in it, but I think it was very, very important.“We announced the training ground, we brought in [new technical director] Mike Rigg, brought in Mark Hughes and his team. “We have done a lot in five months. We have the nucleus of the squad now, and the last piece of the puzzle is the new stadium.” www.london24.com/sport/qpr/qpr_unlikely_to_ground_share_reveals_fernandes_1_1409023
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jun 13, 2012 11:46:10 GMT
Bad news for Manta!
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 13, 2012 11:58:40 GMT
Good news for us though!!
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 13, 2012 13:41:53 GMT
Good news for us though!! Or fundamentally not. Could someone point out in that article where he definitively rules out the possibility of a ground share with another football club, please. Didn't the Vice Chairman make absolute assurances to us that they would never change the club crest shortly before they did?
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jun 13, 2012 14:16:36 GMT
Ruling out ground share with another football team. Could ground share with a say rugby team though
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jun 13, 2012 14:27:54 GMT
Ruling out ground share with another football team. Could ground share with a say rugby team though Mmm yes, quite like Twickenham! ;D
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jun 14, 2012 20:07:19 GMT
Hahahahahahaha!
And WHY would the effing football club care whether the new venue brought in revenue 'from as many sources as possible?'
According to this bunch, the Club won't OWN the new 'venue' will it?
If we are to believe them - and that hardly seems possible, let alone sensible - the Club is to be some sort of 'preferred' TENANT, isn't it?
So even if there is revenue from a variety of sources, the revenue WON'T be coming to the football club.
But even if it did, the football they envisage providing in a ground almost as big as Manchester City's - or have they changed THAT as well, now - won't be up to very much if revenue is required from as many sources as possible.
Why don't they just hand over the revenue from existing successful businesses to QPR if they have the good intentions towards the Club that they make out?
And if the Club 'needs' such revenue to succeed.
They can't have it all ways. They can't kid us they're providing the money themselves, then tell us they're building a huge ground which will be self-financing (presumably) - on the basis of attendances the size of Man City's, Chelsea's and Arsenal's when they were winning titles, then announce that there will be so little money that a few franchises and retail outlets will be required to fund the Club, at that same time that they're telling us that QPR will be ground-sharing, won't be ground-sharing, and won't even own the STADIUM that provides so little revenue (let alone all the other presumably enormous 'sources of revenue').
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 14, 2012 23:08:37 GMT
Bad news for Manta! It seemed the logical step to ground share to me but clearly I am in the minority
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Jun 15, 2012 9:00:41 GMT
Bad news for Manta! It seemed the logical step to ground share to me but clearly I am in the minority It's logical in the sense that you could make a business argument for it, don't think many would argue with that (you could maybe say that it would damage "brand identity" (vomit) but it would reduce costs a hell of a lot). But I'd personally hate to see that ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by deannw10 on Jun 15, 2012 9:49:42 GMT
It's gonna be interesting to see where we end up.w12 I think is going to be too expensive as with been quoted 200m for the dairy land.i can see us ground sharing somewhere with the wasps.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 15, 2012 9:58:27 GMT
It seemed the logical step to ground share to me but clearly I am in the minority It's logical in the sense that you could make a business argument for it, don't think many would argue with that (you could maybe say that it would damage "brand identity" (vomit) but it would reduce costs a hell of a lot). But I'd personally hate to see that ever happen. Except Manta's actual suggestion was to move out of Loftus Road before we had built a new stadium to move to, share with Fulham and leave Loftus Road sitting empty. So we would have to incur the full cost of moving, then pay half the rates at CC on top of the rent and the full rates at Loftus Road as well as the ongoing costs of running the football club. It made no sense at all. Even if Loftus Road was sold off and redeveloped, thus rendering the club completely homeless, the football club would not receive the money from the sale as presently it does not own the ground, the holding company does. Also our lease at CC would be renewable under the auspice of the Fulham board of directors and as such we might find ourselves moving again, which would be another cost, as the hardcore loyal local support dwindles down to almost nothing. Under those conditions we are not even guaranteed to stay within London let alone somewhere nearby to where we are now. An entirely ridiculous suggestion that makes no long term business sense at all and would leave us beholden to the whim of rich men even more so than we are now.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Jun 15, 2012 10:49:56 GMT
It's logical in the sense that you could make a business argument for it, don't think many would argue with that (you could maybe say that it would damage "brand identity" (vomit) but it would reduce costs a hell of a lot). But I'd personally hate to see that ever happen. Except Manta's actual suggestion was to move out of Loftus Road before we had built a new stadium to move to, share with Fulham and leave Loftus Road sitting empty. So we would have to incur the full cost of moving, then pay half the rates at CC on top of the rent and the full rates at Loftus Road as well as the ongoing costs of running the football club. It made no sense at all. Even if Loftus Road was sold off and redeveloped, thus rendering the club completely homeless, the football club would not receive the money from the sale as presently it does not own the ground, the holding company does. Also our lease at CC would be renewable under the auspice of the Fulham board of directors and as such we might find ourselves moving again, which would be another cost, as the hardcore loyal local support dwindles down to almost nothing. Under those conditions we are not even guaranteed to stay within London let alone somewhere nearby to where we are now. An entirely ridiculous suggestion that makes no long term business sense at all and would leave us beholden to the whim of rich men even more so than we are now. Wow, didn't know that was the extent of the suggestion. No thanks!
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jun 15, 2012 12:42:43 GMT
I know that the ground share that is the norm in Australia and in the States, just won't work in England, but what do others think about a ground share with another code (eg rugby). It would mean the ground would be used every week so is better from a business perspective, as we would own a ground that raises revenue for us from another code's team and another code's fans.
Not suggesting it, just wondering what others think.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 15, 2012 12:46:48 GMT
I don't mind WASPS as our Tenants if it doesnt destroy the turf
But even groundsharing with another club. If say a new stadium was built at Loftus Road, and Fulham were to be OUr permanent tenants, that might be...
And even, if at Loftus Road a new stadium owned by Hammersmith which had as its tenants QPR and FUlham, would not be great. But might be wave of the future. I know they do it in Europe between clubs who hate each other as much as we do in England!
|
|
manta
Gordon Jago
Posts: 945
|
Post by manta on Jun 15, 2012 17:57:19 GMT
It's logical in the sense that you could make a business argument for it, don't think many would argue with that (you could maybe say that it would damage "brand identity" (vomit) but it would reduce costs a hell of a lot). But I'd personally hate to see that ever happen. Except Manta's actual suggestion was to move out of Loftus Road before we had built a new stadium to move to, share with Fulham and leave Loftus Road sitting empty. So we would have to incur the full cost of moving, then pay half the rates at CC on top of the rent and the full rates at Loftus Road as well as the ongoing costs of running the football club. It made no sense at all. Even if Loftus Road was sold off and redeveloped, thus rendering the club completely homeless, the football club would not receive the money from the sale as presently it does not own the ground, the holding company does. Also our lease at CC would be renewable under the auspice of the Fulham board of directors and as such we might find ourselves moving again, which would be another cost, as the hardcore loyal local support dwindles down to almost nothing. Under those conditions we are not even guaranteed to stay within London let alone somewhere nearby to where we are now. An entirely ridiculous suggestion that makes no long term business sense at all and would leave us beholden to the whim of rich men even more so than we are now. Hang on, I never said, implied or suggested we ground share leaving Loftus Road empty and continuing paying rent and other costs. You made that assertion yourself. My solution would be to sell the ground to raise money for our new stadium. If we're going to leave it anyway what's the point of keeping it? Yes this is a hard decision as it's been our home for nearly a century but it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 15, 2012 18:02:37 GMT
How much do you TRUST our owners?
Not that we could probably stop it, but to the degree that we have any power, I would not allow Loftus Road to be sold until after, a new Stadium for QPR had been completed.
Too many clubs have been screwed out of the grounds..
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jun 15, 2012 19:02:52 GMT
There's no reason to suppose the funds from the sale of the Ground would be used to pay for a new stadium.
Investors have already borrowed heavily against the stadium. They have also run up enormous losses to pay for inadequate players and underperforming teams.
They would sell off the old ground, and borrow money to build the new one. The Club would pay for the new Ground, but the investors would own it.
So they would get everything - the new Ground and the money from the sale of the old Ground - and QPR would be left with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 15, 2012 19:50:53 GMT
Hang on, I never said, implied or suggested we ground share leaving Loftus Road empty and continuing paying rent and other costs. You made that assertion yourself. What can I say? I'm an assertive person! To be fair you just said we should leave it as it can't be redeveloped and ground share with Fulham. You never mentioned any other scenarios, so what I asserted was what would logically follow under those circumstances. My solution would be to sell the ground to raise money for our new stadium. It's a shame your not the owners then, for as things stand, the football club will not see a penny of that money and the new stadium will be payed for by loans from our owners of which the club will be liable for and hence will have to act as 'anchor tenants' in a stadium it doesn't own in the hope of returning more revenue to simply afford it's running costs let alone pay back those loans. Yes this is a hard decision as it's been our home for nearly a century but it's time to move on. When we sell out every home game, I'll agree with you. Simply by being in the Premiership does not guarantee that, as last season's attendance figures showed, so why would a bigger stadium elsewhere guarantee the attendance figures necessary to be able to afford to run such a stadium? Build the academy so that we can build the team into one that does generate enough interest to justify a move first is the only sensible way forward for the club and then prove that there are another 20,000 or so supporters out there that just aren't that interested yet enough to actually attend a match right now but will when we have a different stadium and who live close enough to actually be able to attend and whom can afford it.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 14, 2013 7:51:21 GMT
Bump a year
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 13, 2014 8:55:37 GMT
Bump 2 Years Bump/Edit Two years ago: QPR unlikely to ground-share, reveals Fernandes
Ian Cooper Wednesday, June 13, 2012 London 24Rangers chairman speaks out on stadium plans Tony Fernandes has indicated that QPR will not pursue plans to ground-share with another club. Rangers chairman Fernandes and chief executive Phil Beard are planning to move the club from their current home at Loftus Road which, with a capacity of just over 18,000, is the smallest stadium in the Premier League. Beard last week insisted that a new ground would need to bring in revenue from as many sources as possible, hinting at the possibility of a multi-purpose venue in west London and not ruling out the prospect of teaming up with another club. A ground-share with neighbours Fulham has been mooted, but Fernandes believes that is unlikely to happen, suggesting that any such plans would be met with opposition from fans. “The idea of a ground-share has not been mentioned to me,” Fernandes told London24.com. “Fundamentally in a business sense I think it’s a good idea. “But what makes sense in business doesn’t always make sense emotionally, and I don’t think we would look to do that.” With the 2012-13 fixtures to be announced on Monday, Rangers boss Mark Hughes is already turning his thoughts to the new season. Hughes is understood to be lining up a move for England goalkeeper Robert Green, who departed West Ham United this week after failing to agree a new deal. And ahead of the new campaign, Fernandes admits that QPR’s unlikely Premier League survival on the final day of last season will be remembered as a pivotal moment in the club’s history. “I always said that it did matter if we were relegated, the journey was set. Obviously it’s a lot easier to do things in the Premier League than the Championship,” he added. “It wasn’t critical to stay in it, but I think it was very, very important. “We announced the training ground, we brought in [new technical director] Mike Rigg, brought in Mark Hughes and his team. “We have done a lot in five months. We have the nucleus of the squad now, and the last piece of the puzzle is the new stadium.” www.london24.com/sport/qpr/qpr_unlikely_to_ground_share_reveals_fernandes_1_1409023
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 13, 2015 8:59:45 GMT
Bump..
3 Years ago
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jun 13, 2015 16:13:47 GMT
Not going to happen. No interest from anyone!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 13, 2018 8:15:57 GMT
Flashback 6 Years now... (And still we're not groundsharing! )
|
|