|
Post by marshbowles10 on Nov 13, 2015 13:09:04 GMT
A planning framework which will deliver more than 25,500 new homes and create up to 65,000 jobs at Old Oak and Park Royal has been approved and adopted by the Mayor of London. Old Oak in West London is set to become home to a new world-class High Speed 2 (HS2) and Crossrail Station by 2026, handling 250,000 passengers a day and acting as a super hub between London and the rest of the UK, Europe and the world. The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) was launched by the Mayor in April and will drive the planning and regeneration of the site that straddles the London boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Brent and Ealing. Earlier this year, the Mayor published an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for consultation, which sets out his long-term vision for the area. Thank you to those who made comments and suggestions during the consultation. Following the conclusion of that consultation, the Mayor has now adopted the document on 4th November 2015 which sets the strategic planning direction for the area. The planning framework aims to: • Create a new urban quarter at Old Oak, supporting a minimum of 24,000 new homes with an additional 1,500 homes in non-industrial locations in Park Royal. • Plan for the new High Speed 2/Crossrail and National Rail interchange to regenerate the area and contribute significantly to London’s competitiveness. • Support the creation of 55,000 new jobs at Old Oak and a further 10,000 jobs at Park Royal. • Protect and enhance Park Royal as a strategic industrial location. • Ensure new development safeguards nearby amenity assets such as Wormwood Scrubs and the Grand Union Canal. • Work with communities, residents and businesses to realise the strategy
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Nov 13, 2015 14:09:35 GMT
Wow!!!
Just imagine how elated you'd be if you'd just acquired £200m worth of shares in a company that's likely to be heavily involved in that lot. What luck!!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 13, 2015 14:38:11 GMT
But not at all clear QPR Owners are going to be the winners
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Nov 13, 2015 14:40:59 GMT
Am I right in assuming this is why the 'debt' was converted to shares? In order to finance OOC?
It would seem unlikely they'd do that with this in mind unless they knew what was coming and that they're going to be big players in this.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Nov 13, 2015 16:21:22 GMT
But not at all clear QPR Owners are going to be the winners Agree with that, though if the clubs owners win so do the club. Don't we?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 13, 2015 16:35:52 GMT
Not entirely sure even re that... Not clear who will be owning the new stadium - if there is one
|
|
|
Post by kewgreen on Nov 13, 2015 16:46:03 GMT
I believe I've read through entire document, but there is no mention of a stadium.
It's precisely the way CarGiant would like to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Nov 13, 2015 16:52:12 GMT
Wow!!! Just imagine how elated you'd be if you'd just acquired £200m worth of shares in a company that's likely to be heavily involved in that lot. What luck!! The owners/shareholders were just as likely to benefit from the redevelopment before they wrote of £240m in the last year, and I don't think it was a cynical ploy to buy into the potential gravy train. If the timing suggests a possible link, I think it's more likely to be that QPR Holdings, in clearing its massive debts, is trying to demonstrate that the company is a responsible and (relatively) debt-free business and will be around to finish whatever it starts - if they do get involved in the redevelopment any way. With Car Giant submitting competing plans, I don't think anything can be taken for granted.
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Nov 13, 2015 17:02:09 GMT
Not entirely sure even re that... Not clear who will be owning the new stadium - if there is one None of it's clear or can be taken for granted. It's just a step they have to take to get to where they want to go. There are no guarantees - this is just positioning. At the moment we are walking the same path as TF because if he doesn't have us he doesn't quite have the leverage for a good case. I firmly believe that's all we are to him. I dont blame him at all for this because he is a businessman and he wants to make a profit. He is not being unreasonable to us along the way, he's made a few naive errors in hindsight but he's generally a benign owner who is/has made an effort. He may never succeed in his plans and if it becomes clear that that is the case then thats when you'll see preparations for a sale. That's my belief anyway.
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Nov 13, 2015 17:10:35 GMT
Wow!!! Just imagine how elated you'd be if you'd just acquired £200m worth of shares in a company that's likely to be heavily involved in that lot. What luck!! The owners/shareholders were just as likely to benefit from the redevelopment before they wrote of £240m in the last year, and I don't think it was a cynical ploy to buy into the potential gravy train. If the timing suggests a possible link, I think it's more likely to be that QPR Holdings, in clearing its massive debts, is trying to demonstrate that the company is a responsible and (relatively) debt-free business and will be around to finish whatever it starts - if they do get involved in the redevelopment any way. With Car Giant submitting competing plans, I don't think anything can be taken for granted. I don't think they're being cynical Ashdown. They are just conducting business in the way that every other business conducts itself (businesses in a similar vein that is). They can see an opportunity to buy in at a low price and with effort on their behalf convert their effort into a higher share price and make more money than they would if they left the £200m where it was, otherwise that's the maximum they would get. This is not a criticism of the owners by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Nov 13, 2015 17:21:03 GMT
Sorry if I misunderstood Alfa - I took the 'What luck!!' to be a sarcastic swipe at the owners/shareholders I'm not sure I'd agree that in writing off personal loans of £240m to leave the club in good financial health is "the way that every other business conducts itself" - I actually think they behaved in a very unusual way in baling out the club (worth maybe £50m?) at their own personal expense (forgetting the argument about how they got the club into the mess in the first place...). Imagine writing off a car worth £50,000 and then paying £240,000 to get it back on the road...
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 13, 2015 18:34:51 GMT
Except...This was money owed to themselves...Not paid others money owed
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Nov 13, 2015 18:39:27 GMT
Sorry if I misunderstood Alfa - I took the 'What luck!!' to be a sarcastic swipe at the owners/shareholders I'm not sure I'd agree that in writing off personal loans of £240m to leave the club in good financial health is "the way that every other business conducts itself" - I actually think they behaved in a very unusual way in baling out the club (worth maybe £50m?) at their own personal expense (forgetting the argument about how they got the club into the mess in the first place...). Imagine writing off a car worth £50,000 and then paying £240,000 to get it back on the road... In truth you didn't necessarily misunderstand that bit as I must confess to a smidgeon of sarcasm in there. It isn't though that I disagree with what they are doing, if indeed they are doing that. I think this one will run for a while so I'm sure it will unfold in all it's wondrous glory. A good topic for the messageboards on the way!
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Nov 13, 2015 18:49:44 GMT
Sorry if I misunderstood Alfa - I took the 'What luck!!' to be a sarcastic swipe at the owners/shareholders I'm not sure I'd agree that in writing off personal loans of £240m to leave the club in good financial health is "the way that every other business conducts itself" - I actually think they behaved in a very unusual way in baling out the club (worth maybe £50m?) at their own personal expense (forgetting the argument about how they got the club into the mess in the first place...). Imagine writing off a car worth £50,000 and then paying £240,000 to get it back on the road... In truth you didn't necessarily misunderstand that bit as I must confess to a smidgeon of sarcasm in there. It isn't though that I disagree with what they are doing, if indeed they are doing that. I think this one will run for a while so I'm sure it will unfold in all it's wondrous glory. A good topic for the messageboards on the way! I've never had an issue with them using QPR to buy into the OOC project. Like you said, they're businessmen and that is what they do and they are perfectly entitled to do so. I've always maintained that position. What I've always objected to is the fact that they've made flippin awful footballing decisions that were never taken with the best interests of QPR at heart. Had they had just bought into QPR and then employed people who knew about football, didn't have an agenda that involved using the club as a vehicle to promote a low cost airline and cared about what was best for QPR on the pitch then I'd have had no issues with them at all. I hope they get what the want out of the regeneration as I have no problem with venture capitalism. I just wish they'd actually not treat the club like a toy along the way.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Nov 14, 2015 14:47:40 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but there will be no new stadium for QPR in this redevelopment. We're staying at Loftus Road.
|
|
w12
Ian Holloway
Posts: 266
|
Post by w12 on Nov 17, 2015 11:52:03 GMT
So thanks a lot Car Giant former sponsors,and allegedly the chairman a fan,just stab us in the back eh!!!,why couldnt they have joined forces on this,they could have their property,and us a new stadium.Oh well i long for a new stadium,perhaps it wont happen in my life time.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Nov 17, 2015 12:10:45 GMT
Not sure that any specifics have been approved, just that the general principal of redeveloping the area has been approved within a framework of 'aims'.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Nov 17, 2015 12:26:56 GMT
As I read it, no mention of a football stadium so that's it out.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Nov 17, 2015 19:13:31 GMT
The fact the there is a list of specific facts about the proposed development and something as big as a stadium is not on there does suggest this is not positive for the clubs plans.
They are specific enough to say that they can fit in 24,000 homes but not mention that there is room for a stadium? I just seems a big enough part of the plan that it would be mentioned.
But then my neighbour never said anything about including a static caravan on his planning application and he went ahead and did it anyway the bast*rd!
|
|
|
Post by steptoesson on Nov 17, 2015 23:54:18 GMT
Because the stadium is not mentioned does not mean it will not be built.
If you look at the wording it says, support the creation of 55,000 jobs. One way to create some of those jobs would be to build a brand new Entertainment venue, a all purpose one that can be a stadium as well as host concerts and other events. Conferences and hospitality as well can be included and if the venue is heavily used this will create many jobs.
Also it says to safeguard the grand union canal and wormwood scrubs from new development, but does not mention what any of this new development will actually be.
No need to worry. Lets see what the final plans are before we pass judgement.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 18, 2015 14:58:06 GMT
So thanks a lot Car Giant former sponsors,and allegedly the chairman a fan,just stab us in the back eh!!!,why couldnt they have joined forces on this,they could have their property,and us a new stadium.Oh well i long for a new stadium,perhaps it wont happen in my life time. From what I've heard, we've treated Cargiant pretty poorly throughout the process for quite some time, hence the competing bid. I don't know loads about it but I wouldn't be too quick to accuse them of stabbing the club in the back - they pumped money into the club when we were desperate for it. But then I'm a moody so and so who doesn't want to leave LR.
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Nov 18, 2015 16:34:06 GMT
This will go on and on for years… I wouldn't say QPR were stabbed in the back either, you'd think we'd have everything needed in place to build a stadium before announcing it would be built by 2018, but thats typical Fernandes.
Having looked at the plans if I was a betting man, I'd say we'd either have no stadium OR we'll have a stadium in another area of park royal (Not Car giants land) but build YEARS from now.
|
|
|
Post by hoop67 on Nov 19, 2015 9:34:41 GMT
For those who say they have read the document and there is no reference to a football stadium I would refer them to page 50.
Queens Park Rangers Football Club has also held pre-application discussions with the local planning authorities and the Greater London Authority on the potential for providing a new football stadium at Old Oak during this time. The development of a new Football Stadium and appropriate associated development within the OPDC area could be supported, subject to it meeting appropriate planning requirements; and securing land agreements. Such a use could provide a large-scale catalyst for regeneration that could be a vibrant focal point for the development.
I agree this is a bit vague but the door is still open although maybe only slightly ajar,
At the Fans Forum Lee Hoos did say that this was a very complicated situation and they had a competing landlord who thought he could make more money without a stadium than with one. He also said they had a strategy but did not elaborate on that.
Whatever is to happen it is clear that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe 10 years?
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Nov 19, 2015 12:19:41 GMT
Thanks 67. Good to know there is still a possibility of the stadium going ahead even if it will only happen some time in the future!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Nov 19, 2015 23:36:37 GMT
Thanks 67. Good to know there is still a possibility of the stadium going ahead even if it will only happen some time in the future! I just can't help but think about soulless bowls like the Madjeski or The Reebok or The Ricoh and it fills me with fear. Maybe they could get it right and it will be wonderful, but it'll almost certainly need to be a multi-purpose arena to justify expenditure, which doesn't bode well (presumably why Beard was appointed early on). And with that comes a heftier capacity which I simply don't think we'd fill - it took Chelsea about 6-7 years of European football every season and multiple cup victories to boost their attendances from mid 20ks to 40k. Or trying to fill it with daytrippers and tourists. I think the more immediate concern is the next generation - getting local young people coming regularly and making it affordable to do so. Shoulda woulda coulda and all that and I'm probably swimming against the tide here, but if only we'd bought the available land near Loftus Road when it was actually available rather than refusing and added capacity and modernised a bit then. I bloody love our ground.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Nov 20, 2015 0:50:30 GMT
Good spot hoops67 I stopped reading at page 49 damn ?
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Jan 4, 2016 1:28:32 GMT
There is a mention in this story about a brownfield site on old oak common being used to build starter homes in a pilot scheme for direct government development projects. David Cameron: Government to directly build 13,000 new homes www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35217418
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jan 4, 2016 1:52:34 GMT
Wonder what division we will be in, when our new Stadium is built, if it ever is.
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jan 4, 2016 3:23:32 GMT
There is a mention in this story about a brownfield site on old oak common being used to build starter homes in a pilot scheme for direct government development projects. David Cameron: Government to directly build 13,000 new homes www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35217418starter homes that starters can't afford
|
|
|
Post by timewaster on Jan 4, 2016 4:07:59 GMT
There is a mention in this story about a brownfield site on old oak common being used to build starter homes in a pilot scheme for direct government development projects. David Cameron: Government to directly build 13,000 new homes www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35217418starter homes that starters can't afford Free for Syrians and pretend Syrians
|
|