|
Post by marshbowles10 on Jul 17, 2012 11:56:16 GMT
This might be very relevant
"BBC Television Centre was sold yesterday for £200 million to a property developer. The 14 acre site has been purchased by Stanhope PLC"
Well STAN was one of the best players to ever don a correctly designed blue and white shirt and Tony is giving us HOPE so therefore here is the answer to the question of where the new stadium will be.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 17, 2012 12:02:35 GMT
UniGate is the site for us I think
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Jul 17, 2012 15:12:45 GMT
i said ages ago bbc site was no.1 choice so would not surprise me unless someone else has got in there in front of us and i was not aware anything else was being planned to be built there.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jul 18, 2012 7:29:22 GMT
KL. Announcement later today.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jul 18, 2012 8:24:27 GMT
KL. Announcement later today. Maybe it will be Stanhope calling!!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 18, 2012 8:30:01 GMT
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jul 18, 2012 19:07:44 GMT
Strangely, that blurb is not uninteresting, Mac.
There is a superficial variety, but the projects all seem to provide very much the same thing. An array of boxes, rather as a football ground provides a large area of grass, and an array of tip-up seats.
In practice, the only real difference is size. Difficult to see the difference a much bigger building would make. If a firm is cramming 12,000 staff into a building which only comfortably accommodates 3,000, you can see why they might move somewhere much bigger.
Same with a football club. If there are 3,000 inside, and for 37 years, at least 9,000 have been hanging around outside in the hope of a spare ticket, a 12,000 capacity ground would make some sort of sense. But would you move to a 12,000 capacity ground just on the off-chance that they might turn up, if you rarely filled the ground you had. Or in the hope that the ground would be full once every dozen years for a cup tie?
Would a business move 3,000 staff into a building holding 12,000? If the people running the firm had done so dozens of times before. So they knew what was required and what the risks were. Maybe.
But it is hard to think of anyone who has transformed a football club in that way. Reading talk a lot about the size of the new Ground, but it is smaller than the old one before it was allowed to fall to pieces. And Reading don't seem very much different to any number of non-achieving wannabes.
Football clubs have been much the same 'size' for the best part of 100 years. Depends how you define a Club's size, but supporters can usually tell, I suppose.
I can't think of a small Club - or even a medium sized Club - which has become a big Club since the War. Why not, though? Why doesn't it happen all the time? But how could it?
And it is very difficult to imagine, partly because most of the big Clubs were big or had very big stadiums 80 years ago.
The criterion relates to overperforming, I'd say. Any Club can do well for a while. But smaller Clubs can fall almost any distance when they start doing badly. And if they're just doing OK, they remain in whatever doldrums they habitually inhabit. A big Club rarely falls all that far. It may be rubbish for decades, but it rarely drops out of the top flight for all that long.
Spurs, Man City, Man Utd and Villa all went down to the second tier, a couple of them even to the third. But they weren't there for long. There seems to be an elasticity about them. Smaller clubs can bounce back, but can't stretch it too far. And the bigger Clubs have a lot of slack in the lower leagues, where their huge attendances - and the revenue and players they can sign with the money - enables them to move up very much more easily.
It is difficult to imagine those Clubs swapping places. A single, very unusual exception, maybe. A giant which goes on falling. Or a minnow which rises to the top. But the day of the minnows is long gone, or seems to be. The big Clubs hardly win anything nowadays, except the biggest, and a couple of rather unconvincingly second string challengers like Arsenal and Chelsea.
Maybe small Clubs can turn this round by building big grounds. But a big ground is just more tip up seats. It doesn't mean the Club is bigger. Or the support.
Why were our attendances in 1976 not only much smaller than Clubs below us, even some of the medium sized Clubs, let alone the big ones. Despite our lofty position, we also struggled to get a full house except for the very biggest matches.
I think there is an inertia in the League. The Clubs are locked into their size, like blocks in a pyramid. The blocks are essentially components, some are bigger and some are smaller, and it isn't easy to swap them around casually, because the structure wouldn't work any more.
A small Club used to be able to equal a big Club by overperforming, like QPR did in the mid-1970s. But only to the extent bigger Clubs underperformed. Even if they just performed normally, we couldn't keep up. And there isn't just one big Club, or one medium sized Club for QPR to compete with. So the odds in favour of other Clubs at least equalling our level of performance are enormous. With the big ones usually comfortably surpassing it.
Smaller Clubs usually try to bridge the gap by borrowing and spending more. But Clubs of our size find it difficult to match the spending and borrowing at the bigger Clubs. And it is the Clubs' money which is being spent. With the lenders taking a good deal of care to ensure they don't lend more than they think they can squeeze back out of the Club. Maybe this will change, but it is hard to think of an exception, except Blackburn, who, typically, couldn't keep it up when the big Clubs really cranked up the spending.
Perhaps that is why new stadiums make so little difference. Are Forest better, or Derby, or Wolves in their rebuilt ground? Hard to imagine Man City failing to win the title this season just because they were still at Maine Road. Not with £1 billion plus to spend. Any more than Arsenal have been able to win the title while they lack the handful of real quality players to lift them above City and United. More expensive tickets aren't quite the same as superior footballers on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by grillr on Jul 18, 2012 19:23:50 GMT
Be weird to have a stadium on the site of White City.... knocked an iconic stadium down 25 years or so ago, built some identikit offices on the site and now they come down to, errr, make way for another stadium??? S'pose that's progress. I used to work on the Tote at White City and it was funny to see Stan Bowles come tearing in showered and suited after a night kick-off for the 9:32 race. I remember when they dropped the bombshell after last race one night that it was curtains... they'd announced previously it was gonna close at end of month and we were getting laid off. Most of us duly started dipping our hands in the till and I was was planning on skimming 90% of my take on the final night; s'pose that's why they sneakily brought things forward and dropped the bombshell of instant closure a couple of weeks early; longer they stayed open the more takings that were getting robbed! On last night I just about snatched a fiver and half-a-bottle of vodka out the American bar and that was it. Still, happy memories working there, seeing greyhound derby, Whice City Rebels speedway and some stock car races so I'd be happy to have it as HQ for the Rs.
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 18, 2012 19:37:26 GMT
My friends are all waiting With time on there hands It's Saturday night The bridges are broken, there's no turning back To white city lights.
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Jul 18, 2012 20:36:19 GMT
Used to watch stock car racing at wc...loved it. My old man used to make me and my bro and sister watch the athletics there.....bloody hated it.....just so's he could have a bit of nooki. bah.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 20, 2012 13:30:09 GMT
“@mattslaterbbc: Beeb has revealed details of its plans for Television Centre site, no room for #QPR by the look of it. Not many sites left in H&F”
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Jul 20, 2012 15:34:18 GMT
Foreign groups back BBC TV Centre plan
By Ed Hammond and Robert Budden in London
A Canadian state pension fund and Japan’s largest property company by market value have teamed up to finance the redevelopment of the BBC Television Centre, underlining the appetite from foreign investors for London real estate.
Alberta Investment Management Corp, which manages C$71bn (US$70bn) for the central Canadian province, and Mitsui Fudosan will provide 90 per cent of the finance for the £200m deal. The remaining 10 per cent will come from developer Stanhope, which will convert the west London site into housing, offices and hotels.
The deal, and the size of the participants, points to the growing interest in the London property market from long-term institutional owners, many of which are attracted to its perceived stability amid widespread market turmoil. The shift towards longer-term investors also marks a departure from the speculative property buying which helped precipitate the financial crisis.
Stanhope, which fronted the bid, won a tightly contested process to secure control of Television Centre and will develop it in partnership with the BBC.
The developer and its backers will take a 999-year leasehold on the site and rent office space to the BBC, including a building for the headquarters of BBC Worldwide, the broadcaster’s commercial division, as well as BBC studios and post production.
Under a complicated arrangement, the broadcaster will retain the freehold to the site for three years before passing it to Stanhope, allowing it to gradually unwind its operations at Television Centre. However, the BBC will also share in a small slice of the profits on the conversion, which will in part be determined by the developer’s success in securing planning consent for further developments.
While much of the 14-acre site will be levelled to make way for thousands of new homes, a hotel, offices and shops, some parts, including the Grade II listed “doughnut” – the semicircular frontage of the building – will be preserved and incorporated into the new development.
The sale is part of the BBC’s attempts to cut costs following a part relocation to Salford in Manchester, and a six-year freeze on the licence fee – a viewer tax imposed by the UK government.
Caroline Thomson, chief operating officer of the BBC, labeled the property sale a “land and brand” deal designed to get added value for licence payers from the BBC branded property.
Many programmes are no longer made at Television Centre. The BBC’s children’s output has been relocated to Salford. The BBC has also refurbished and expanded Broadcasting House, its original radio headquarters, near Oxford Circus in central London.
Both of its new owners are in the process of expanding their real estate holdings in London.
Aimco, the fourth-largest pension fund in Canada by assets under management, manages the investments for Alberta’s provincial government, public pension plans and endowments. Meanwhile, Mitsui, which already owns a 15 per cent stake in Stanhope, is involved in a number of building projects in London.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 20, 2012 15:40:33 GMT
Think Unigate is the only option left in W12.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Jul 20, 2012 16:13:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 20, 2012 16:26:01 GMT
That's not final though is it?? The land hasn't been sold yet. Also I'm pretty sure if we went to the council and said it's the Unigate site or we are leaving the area they will jump through Hoops ( ;D) to help us get that site.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Jul 20, 2012 16:33:24 GMT
That's not final though is it?? The land hasn't been sold yet. Also I'm pretty sure if we went to the council and said it's the Unigate site or we are leaving the area they will jump through Hoops ( ;D) to help us get that site. Dairy Crest sold the site to Aviva Investments in 2002. Helical Bar are the Developers of the site.
|
|
|
Post by deannw10 on Jul 20, 2012 16:43:06 GMT
Think it's time to face facts,we're moving out the bush.if we were staying TF would have said so,instead of just saying west London.it will either be old oak,kensal gasworks or along the a40 corridor
|
|
fisnik
Gerry Francis
Posts: 84
|
Post by fisnik on Jul 20, 2012 16:47:16 GMT
Hope it's old oak or kensal gasworks then...
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 20, 2012 16:49:21 GMT
Think it's time to face facts,we're moving out the bush.if we were staying TF would have said so,instead of just saying west London.it will either be old oak,kensal gasworks or along the a40 corridor Bircham said on Talksport it will be in W12
|
|
|
Post by Jo-Onenil on Jul 20, 2012 16:50:43 GMT
When? Today?
|
|
|
Post by nadera78 on Jul 20, 2012 16:54:50 GMT
When you look at the plan they have on that site, there is a big plot of land wedged between the area they're developing and the railway tracks. Currently covered in warehouses and an office block. Partly owned by the BBC because I used to work in that block directly behind the White City station.
Just compared it on google maps and it's easily twice the size of Loftus Rd.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 20, 2012 16:58:04 GMT
|
|