|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 11, 2016 12:54:39 GMT
QPR OFFICIAL SITE 10:00 11th March 2016 Fans asked to support a new stadium at Old Oak to secure QPR's future and benefit West London ... Old Oak decision making process reaches another important milestone QPR fans asked to show support for new stadium to #KeepWestLondonRs New stadium vital to QPRâs long term sustainability The Mayor of London has launched the next phase of consultation on Old Oak, where QPR hope to build a new stadium, issuing a document known as the âLocal Planâ â the rules by which all planning applications are decided. The document is only a draft and calls on people, particularly West London residents, to comment so they can help shape the plans for their area. The draft Local Plan calls for small to large-scale âcatalystsâ that could act as a focus of early development, which could include âculture, sport, leisure uses, education and health institutions.â QPR have a plan to deliver a new QPR stadium, with educational, sporting and community facilities to benefit people in the area. The club shares the Mayorâs vision for Old Oak to become a vibrant place where people live, work and play, and return to time and time again. A new multifunctional stadium â a sports and entertainment hub that is used all year round â would drive the timescale to support the early delivery of homes, and the restaurants, shops and bars within it would bring jobs and opportunities to the area. It would also provide a proper base for the QPR in the Community Trust, allowing it to increase its highly regarded community outreach activity. If you want to ensure the long term sustainability of QPR and #KeepWestLondonRs then please complete the form below to tell the decision makers that a new stadium should specifically be included in the plans. The voice of every Râs fan will count, and having your say couldnât be easier. Alternatively, if you want to comment in more detail on the Mayorâs vision for Old Oak, you can visit the Local Plan website or email the OPDC on localplan@opdc.london.gov.uk. It is important to include your home address so they can contact you afterwards. Read more at www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-new-stadium-support-form-3000872.aspx#GzfQ5iluxHZHhbRi.99
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 11, 2016 13:11:19 GMT
Won't get much support from the member of this board I'd recon.
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Mar 11, 2016 14:53:06 GMT
Well they got it from me.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Mar 11, 2016 15:01:49 GMT
Well they got it from me. +1
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 11, 2016 15:16:26 GMT
Beyond whether we have to leave Loftus Road...
The question is Do we NEED all the Housing also? If so, what happens if we don't get?
How do all these other clubs build stadiums without Housing?
And the fact that the Stadium will not seemingly be owned by QPR. So we'll be tenants
As to the future of Loftus Road after we move..
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 11, 2016 16:23:38 GMT
Won't get much support from the member of this board I'd recon. it's blatantly clear that the only way the club can survive financially in the modern game at anywhere near our current level is with a new stadium. That's of course unless anyone believes wants and accepts that we should stay at Loftus Road and end up playing lower league or non league football - is that what we really want for future generations?.
The issue that clouds some peoples minds to the point they do not want a new stadium is the well voiced opinions that "the owners are only in it to get rich and screw the fans etc etc"
Whether plan for a new ground is part of Old Oak (which financially makes more sense) or the middle of Shepherds Bush Green or somewhere else in the area is largely irrelevant as long as it does not mean a move out of the area.
Asking fans to support it seems perfectly fair to my mind and I cannot see why there should not be support from this message board.
Given the number of overseas and distant supporters who cannot attend games but post on here to keep in touch I would hope that common sense on what is best for the long term future of the club will be more important than anything else.
I can understand the arguments for a new stadium giving an enhanced set of revenue streams if it comes off - more hospitality opportunities, more money derived from leisure activities like shops etc. I've yet to see an argument that shows with real confidence that not moving means playing lower league or non league football, though? I am also very conscious of the similar arguments being made by boardrooms at other clubs where it simply hasn't gone well. The Ricoh Arena springs to mind of how it can all go so wrong. Agree it's totally fair for the club to solicit support for it - they've got a vested interest in the development and mobilising fans is really good PR for them when it comes to influencing decision makers in a competitive planning process. They have every right to do that. I don't think the stadium plans are designed to "screw the fans", but I don't buy that it's being done predominantly for the football club or the fans' benefit. That doesn't mean it can't benefit QPR - if the owners do things the right way, then what's good for them can also be good for the club in terms of growth and investment. Personally, I'm still yet to be convinced that a much bigger stadium in a different location is necessary in the medium term for a club of our size, with our attendances and for the leagues we generally play in. Also totally happy to admit that a part of my objection is purely preference. I love Loftus Road, it means a hell of a lot to me. I love football stadiums that are designed primarily for football and I'm intensely proud of our stadium and the culture attached to it. Almost every trip I've made to multi-purpose stadiums to other clubs has felt sterile and it negatively impacts my enjoyment of football. If at some point there's an argument that shows me that it's the survival of the club at around the same level versus staying at Loftus Road, I'd reluctantly back a move, of course. For the time being, I don't think a lot of the questions, like those raised by Macmoish above, have been adequately answered enough to sway me. It's a symptom of modern football "realism" presented as objective truth, a false dichotomy of "progress" or death, that I just don't think is right and if I have an opportunity to oppose that then I will. And I totally agree that overseas and distance supporters should have a say, they have every right to. But find it a little depressing that you're putting so much emphasis on that aspect. Fans like myself are the ones who are going to be travelling there every other week or more, paying through the turnstiles and experiencing the atmosphere or lack of. Appreciate that the broader longevity and growth of the club in a wider sense is the priority, but for lots of fans, the day to day experience of physically going to the game is a massive part of the decision making process. And that goes for people in favour of the stadium too of course - out of the group of people I go to games with, I reckon there's just as many people enthusiastic about a new stadium as opposed to it.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 11, 2016 16:40:52 GMT
Beyond whether we have to leave Loftus Road... The question is Do we NEED all the Housing also? If so, what happens if we don't get? How do all these other clubs build stadiums without Housing? And the fact that the Stadium will not seemingly be owned by QPR. So we'll be tenants As to the future of Loftus Road after we move.. All valid questions mostly with logical answers available.
Do we need the housing - as a football club no and the football club is not building the housing. The housing is not attached to or part of the stadium and the club is not asking for support for housing. However in real life trying to buy a plot of land in London purely for use as a football stadium is beyond our reach. If the ground is wrapped up in a larger regeneration project that spreads the costs and produces some income for the developers it makes the cost a new stadium more viable; The football club is only asking for support for the ground - not to support the detail of everything involved in the Old Oak regeneration which is totally beyond the control of QPR Car Giant or any other single participant and is till unknown.
How do other clubs build stadiums without housing - Some do and run into financial trouble. Some do not build grounds suitable for the PL, some me are not located in the mega expensive urban districts of London and other larger towns. Look at Brighton and where they had to build firstly to win a long battle for permission and secondly because of the comparative low cost of the land Some like Arsenal and Tottenham spend masses of money (that we do not have) but still build added facilities but also have to endure restriction son finances in different areas due to the cost of an individual build.
The ground will not be owned by the Club - Good financial sense. Keep the development and building of a stadium separate from the club and the club will not be dragged down if the bigger project starts to hot financial trouble. Having the club and ground owned by different entities is not a problem and in fact can be an enormous benefit as long as the correct financial arrangements and legal agreements are put in place.
Loftus Road after we move - will be sold off and redeveloped. It will be worth much more as a redevelopment site than as a football ground and the club has the opportunity to generate enough from the asset sale to secure it's long term future .
Have a look at what they have done to Highbury. www.arsenal.com/history/arsenal-stadium-highbury/highbury-square
The bottom line is very simple. Forget all the bigger Old Oak regeneration stuff and decide - do we need a stadium and if so do you support it being in the Old Oak development. If the answers to those questions are yes the details will follow over time. If the answers are no, then we put our heads back in the sand and wait for the inevitable. If we want to know every detail of the inner workings of the minds of the clubs owners and their motives before we say yes or no, we are nolonger talking about a football ground or even the football club.
There's as much evidence showing that not being tenants in your own ground can lead to serious financial issues as well as benefits though. When other investments have gone badly wrong, it has been holding onto the stadium in a prime location as an asset that has been a crucial part of survival and accessing additional capital. As you say, it's about the right financial and legal agreements being in place. Considering the last few years, I'm not necessarily confident that that would necessarily be the case. The Ricoh Arena was built just off a major motorway junction with the remit of being a sponsored, multi-purpose venue and leisure complex with gigs, hospitality, a Grosvenor Casino and so on. Coventry were tenants there and in combination with a few crap seasons of football ended up haemorraging money with their tenancy agreement. I know this barely seems to be a consideration for people arguing about a new stadium, but it also happens to be a shite place to watch football. The Highbury development is a really good example of strong business sense and of bleak ethical values. It's a 650+ housing unit development with only 70 affordable/shared equity units. Personally, I think that's a really tragic use of a football stadium that was sat bang in the centre of a local community. Same kind of thing that's going to happen with the old Boleyn Ground when West Ham move to the Olympic Stadium, something that there's a fans protest at Stratford Town Hall about this very evening. This is all a moot point if we are only focusing on the economics of a profitable football club, but I think football and our club's legacy in the community is important too. Think presenting a binary choice between accepting the stadium or putting "our heads back in the sand" is simply patronising. I don't need to know every inner working of the owners' minds, people have a right to be curious about the motivations and arguments behind a move, it's a massive issue with ramifications for decades. I like to think that I'm not myopic and like I keep saying, I see and agree with the arguments of the new stadium being a potential basis for new revenue streams, I don't see an argument as to why it's somehow crucial to the survival of our club at around the same level of football.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Mar 11, 2016 18:17:52 GMT
So, what should a new stadium be? ⢠Heart of the local community (no direct benefit to club) regardless of stadium type ⢠Housing estate with stadium included (some kudos to club and possibly income) ⢠Just a bigger venue with scope for larger crowds (cheaper tickets?)... however 'soul-less' ⢠Within 2,5,10, 10+ miles from Loftus Road - would a cheaper location, guaranteeing the club's future outweigh a closer, more expensive option which may not be affordable ⢠Stay at Loftus Road and live with the limitation on attendance - and knee-crippling 'space' (I actually think that alone must keep away a LOT of fans... and people are getting BIGGER) ⢠A flagship white elephant in whose reflected glory owners can bask in (sorry Flav, a splash of silver paint and a £10k chandelier didn't quite cut it..) ⢠Owners or tenants (and does it matter if the freehold is mortgaged to the hilt) Who knows where we'll be in 5 years time. I suspect it will still be at Loftus Road. Maybe the club could bring in a scheme to offer a discount on knee replacements to ST holders who reach enough loyalty points?
|
|
|
Post by nadera78 on Mar 11, 2016 19:48:57 GMT
Leaving all the above aside for a moment, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence over the past 5 years that the owners have the ability to deliver a new stadium. They've lost ÂŁ250million of their own money (plus a similar amount of money the club earned) and the club is in a worse position than when they arrived.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 12, 2016 4:30:10 GMT
And I totally agree that overseas and distance supporters should have a say, they have every right to. But find it a little depressing that you're putting so much emphasis on that aspect. Fans like myself are the ones who are going to be travelling there every other week or more, paying through the turnstiles and experiencing the atmosphere or lack of. Appreciate that the broader longevity and growth of the club in a wider sense is the priority, but for lots of fans, the day to day experience of physically going to the game is a massive part of the decision making process. And that goes for people in favour of the stadium too of course - out of the group of people I go to games with, I reckon there's just as many people enthusiastic about a new stadium as opposed to it. Bow I don't think overseas fans like me should have much of a say in the new stadium or staying at Loftus Rd. As you so eloquently put it, it is the West London fans who turn up week in week out who should have the say. It's many years since I watched a game at Loftus Rd but it's unique up close and personal cauldron like atmosphere has never left me. This could be lost in a modern stadium. However, attending modern stadiums vs old leg cramping stadiums a lot over here in OZ, I can say that designed properly, a modern stadium can be made to ensure atmosphere is maintained while comfort is increased, and proper food/drinks outlets, toilets etc are put in that attract fans to come. But enough of my ramblings, as you quite rightly point out, it really up to the fans that go to games week in week out to decide.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Mar 12, 2016 9:44:44 GMT
I would like to add that living in Suffolk & with no desire to move home to West London, I don't feel that I should have any say in the development either. I support Queens Park Rangers, not the Tune Group etc.
If a new stadium is what the club require, then that is what the club should be aiming for as a priority & not as a by product. Which is what it is with Old Oak.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 14, 2016 14:33:24 GMT
And I totally agree that overseas and distance supporters should have a say, they have every right to. But find it a little depressing that you're putting so much emphasis on that aspect. Fans like myself are the ones who are going to be travelling there every other week or more, paying through the turnstiles and experiencing the atmosphere or lack of. Appreciate that the broader longevity and growth of the club in a wider sense is the priority, but for lots of fans, the day to day experience of physically going to the game is a massive part of the decision making process. And that goes for people in favour of the stadium too of course - out of the group of people I go to games with, I reckon there's just as many people enthusiastic about a new stadium as opposed to it. Bow I don't think overseas fans like me should have much of a say in the new stadium or staying at Loftus Rd. As you so eloquently put it, it is the West London fans who turn up week in week out who should have the say. It's many years since I watched a game at Loftus Rd but it's unique up close and personal cauldron like atmosphere has never left me. This could be lost in a modern stadium. However, attending modern stadiums vs old leg cramping stadiums a lot over here in OZ, I can say that designed properly, a modern stadium can be made to ensure atmosphere is maintained while comfort is increased, and proper food/drinks outlets, toilets etc are put in that attract fans to come. But enough of my ramblings, as you quite rightly point out, it really up to the fans that go to games week in week out to decide. Totally legit point - and I think it's certainly really important to consider that people want different things from their match day experience if a new stadium is on the cards, or even when discussing the pros and cons of moving in the first place in lieu of major changes to Loftus Road. Prime example is that I go with both parents to games. Cramped leg room, access to facilities, wanting to sing but not wanting to stand at home/away games are all things far more valuable to them than they are to me (I'd stand all the time if I could, I never use the facilities except for a beer now and again at half-time at away games or a quick loo trip etc.). All of that should rightly be considered and many modern stadiums eleviate some of those issues. I guess it's about striking a balance. You're right - modern stadiums can be designed really well, with consultation and sensitivity. Australia, from what I hear, definitely has some good examples. Also find it interesting that for clubs in the MLS, for example (I'm not comparing it to the A League, by the by, just tallies a little bit), clubs are doing the opposite to what many clubs are doing here. As in, clubs like Houston are moving their stadiums into the metropole of cities, not out - to try and solidify roots whilst the trend over here seems to be to push clubs out into retail parks on the edge of town (Derby, Stoke, Coventry, Swansea, Bolton etc. etc.). I think my concern on that front is largely three-fold. Firstly, the remit of the new stadium is to be a multi-purpose venue and balancing the needs for different sporting events, gigs and/or whatever else they put on in there will be a major concern for me. The football fan experience is not primary and we know that people often (not always) want a different experience at the football than they do for other events. Secondly, as above, British stadium developers in recent years have a predominantly poor record of building football-centric stadiums in terms of what I like - they're so often sterile. Compared to everything you get with Loftus Road, despite its short-comings, it feels like a huge risk. Perhaps the fact that safe-standing seems a more realistic possibility than a few years back will help balance interests to some extent? Fernandes has openly said he isn't opposed to integrating that in a new stadium should it become legal. Thirdly, consultation is so key and I don't think our club has a great record of acting on that. It's certainly a megaton better than it was, say, five years ago - but it still feels like so much is pre-decided. My overriding concern is that the idea that a new stadium in this location is set in stone in terms of its unyielding importance that regardless of what people think, it'll still happen. Or it'll end up a hotch potch of ideas, sort of like the "new badge" (hopefully that'll turn out well). As Lee Hoos put it a while back at a different meeting, if you ask enough people to design a horse you'll end up with a camel. It's a difficult balance, obviously and the club should be saluted for soliciting supporters' views on it. I'm definitely in the minority on it, so it's kind of fair enough, but the way the consultations have been dealt with so far just feel like most aspects are a foregone conclusion. To be clear, I certainly think QPR fans from anywhere deserve a say on this, predominantly because a new stadium is being linked by the club to the ongoing future of QPR, so it's important for everyone, match-going fans or not - you, terryb and so on. I think my main issue is just how there's a large focus on the big picture and less on the day to day experience. Rightly, lots of arguments in favour of a new stadium are rooted in the broad economic issues regarding QPR, but there's very little talk of the match day experience and that's a big factor for a lot of people. Haha and I don't think you need to talk about rambling on, have you seen the bloody length of my replies???
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 14, 2016 15:24:42 GMT
Bow I don't think overseas fans like me should have much of a say in the new stadium or staying at Loftus Rd. As you so eloquently put it, it is the West London fans who turn up week in week out who should have the say. It's many years since I watched a game at Loftus Rd but it's unique up close and personal cauldron like atmosphere has never left me. This could be lost in a modern stadium. However, attending modern stadiums vs old leg cramping stadiums a lot over here in OZ, I can say that designed properly, a modern stadium can be made to ensure atmosphere is maintained while comfort is increased, and proper food/drinks outlets, toilets etc are put in that attract fans to come. But enough of my ramblings, as you quite rightly point out, it really up to the fans that go to games week in week out to decide. Agree with the major part of both posts above apart from the fact I did not intend to put any emphasis on overseas supporters choosing the ground - just that if they have a view and comment on the subject the view should be based on the best interests of the club as they obviously are not impacted by the actual location and should put aside the TF is in it for the money thoughts. If we want to block the progress of the club in case the shareholders make some business profit we are not thinking of the best interest of the club
The only other point I would comment on is what I now believe to be a bit of a myth about the cauldron like atmosphere at Loftus Road. Cant' say it has been evident this season and if so in small doses. How many complaints are there about lack of atmosphere, lack of facilities , restricted views, no leg room (with my height and leg length I cannot even sit down unless the seat in front is empty) , NO HOME END, family stand etc. Look at the ground 15 minutes before kick off and the ground is empty. Probably with the club extracting as much cash as possible from pre match outlets.
Compare that back to the 1960's and 1970's with terraces, larger crowds with the terraces and stands full of people a long time before kick-off building up the atmosphere and the noise and chanting started from the Loft and spreading around the ground. In those days yes (with the fans even closer to the pitch) with those conditions Loftus Road was a cauldron even when we were struggling low in the league and losing at home. That atmosphere was worth a goal start. Having endured the winter of 1962/63 at White City the comparison is made even easier.
For those who can remember the then and now and compare them objectively there has been a big change. One of my hopes for a new stadium (which I do not think will come about in my lifetime so this is partly academic to me ) is that the stadium can be designed to at least gives us a home end and create a home ground feeling.
Personally having been born literally in the shadow of the floodlights, leaving Loftus Road would be the end of the QPR I was born into, raised with and came to know and I am not enthusiastic about that possibility. However I know that everything comes to an end or major change and when it does the only way to tackle it is to help make sure whatever comes next is the best that can be achieved - even if it leaves behind some of the parts we love.
Obviously if and when that happens those of us with a social conscience and a deep family connection to the area will be concerned about putting the old ground to the best possible use. But to think that blocking a move to a new ground because we are not satisfied with the intended disposal of the old one really is hitting our heads against a brick wall.
So back to the OP. This is a very long drawn out process with thousands of open questions, and the club in reality is a small part of the whole scheme. So the first question that the club has put on the table is to request support for a new stadium at Old Oak - no more no less. Until we get past question 1 the rest is obviously an interesting discussion but lets take it one step at a time
Emphasis was probably too strong a word for it really, I see your point. My take on the first part is that I certainly don't take a view that it's a binary decision between blocking progress and the shareholders not cashing in and progress occurring and the shareholders making a mint. I've said before, albeit on another thread, that there's no reason why what's good for the owners can't be good for QPR. But firstly, it's about trying to counter a large chunk of the emotion the club are injecting into the debate for their understandable PR battle over this development, which ingham makes a really good argument regarding. Progress in the eyes of the boardroom does not de facto mean progress for QPR in exactly the way we see it. They're linked and rightly so, but the gains the shareholders could get from the project are potentially huge as part of a wide range of their broader business interests and it feels dangerous for many people to be so eager to explicitly link these plans as definitely based in QPR's best interests, just because our name is being used as the primary vehicle. We've had owners for decades who have told us that plans were crucial and in the club's best interests for long-term progress, including moving us to Milton Keynes and/or merging ourselves and other clubs out of existence. I'm not saying the current plans are as bad as that and they're all out to screw us. I want the owners to make money from QPR in a mutually beneficial way, that's normally good for everyone and I have zero problem whatsoever with the shareholders making some cash if they can. I'm just saying we need to be realistic - these are rich people who didn't make their money by not looking after themselves primarily and their interests are significant and they're motivated to protect them, just like Cargiant are. The new stadium could be everything I ever dreamed of for all I know, but the context and the business interests at play mind me to be incredibly cautious in terms of how we view all of this. It's really important. After taking everything in so far, my view is that QPR are largely being used as a vehicle for a wider profitable development project of which QPR is but one part. That doesn't mean it is definitely bad for QPR, but I do feel that's a reason to be cautious. I agree that the cauldron element of QPR can be overblown, particularly compared to how it was decades ago. But I feel like whilst the reasons you put there are totally true, there are other reasons which are not linked to the stadium in its current state - and if anything, the experience of modern stadiums can actually exacerbate this rather than make it better. The big factor for me is expectation levels - the way they have been raised to a ridiculous extent over the last 5-10 years. Bigger players on bigger wages with even bigger promises coming from the top about the quality of football and the level at which we 'should' be playing. The effect on some people, it seems, is that it translates to either not singing supportively and/or being more likely to grumble and moan as we are often failing to live up to the high expectations we've set ourselves and have often seen very highly paid players not delivering - that's alienating and it hurts the atmosphere. I certainly didn't feel like cheering on players like Bosingwa and Assou-Akotto, that's for sure. There's some wonderful examples there from further back, but there's still some closer to home. I remember in the good times under Holloway, we'd have thousands less in the ground than we do now and the place would still rock - when you've got players who give everything and you start to string results together. Totally agree that the standard of facilities probably plays a role in this, but I still feel that a good feeling around the club in general combats even the crappest leg room. I think of Cardiff City's new ground compared to Ninian Park. Not my cup of tea but not a badly designed new ground either and compare the atmosphere in there now (crap) compared to the game versus QPR when we were both battling for promotion (amazing). Expectations have shifted, negativity has set in, regardless of the facilities. Creating a good atmosphere is a cocktail of things and it's incredibly hard to get right - particularly in terms of meeting a range of fans' expectations. The people who tend to get chants and songs going need placating - not having aggressive stewarding about standing, a defined home end and more often than not, easy access to booze. For others to join in who aren't in those sections, they need to be in a degree of comfort so they can focus on enjoying the game and feel encouraged to join in - not getting their knees battered to death simply for sitting down and not having to worry about how on earth they're going to access the loo or get a bite to eat at half time. I feel that in many modern grounds, the emphasis on facilities can be damaging to the atmosphere - keeping people out of the pitchside area as long as possible prior to the start of the game. Going to Man City the other season was a good example of this, to me. As soon as you're off the tram, you're in a situation akin to Disneyland. There's eateries, big screen tellies with live presenters, even live bands playing outside. It's all there to keep you out of your seat but within the confines of the stadium development, preferably spending money. We went in a good 20 minutes before kick off and the place was near deserted and silent. They were even pumping scenes from outside the ground onto the big screens in the ground. I think that's a core reason why fanbases like Man City's are actively trying to combat the situation with more explicitly singing sections with flags and so on, or like Red Faction at Boro or the Holmesdale Fanatics at Palace - encouraging a greater emphasis on creating atmosphere earlier and attempting to combat sterility. But tying all of this together has to be a good feeling around the place - a positive vibe that the club, the players and the fans are all pushing in the same direction. The vibe that pushes support from just wanting us to do well to wanting to actively try and make that happen. That goes for whether it's the Camp Nou or a non-league ground with one tiny overgrown stand. The stadium plays a big part, but without that that background, it can mean very little. Regardless of what happens with a stadium, I hope that the green shoots of change and positivity around HQ at the moment continues.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 17, 2016 2:37:01 GMT
I'm never convinced by arguments that what we need is more revenue. If the number of teams that won the title each season increased with every massive increase in TV money, then, I think, there would be merit in the idea.
If relegation was now a thing of the past because every Club which has been anywhere near the Premiership has so much money it can't be relegated, with the result that we have a 60 Club Premiership, with most of them winning the title every year, it would make sense.
But it has never made any difference at all. The Clubs are still ranked from 1 to 90 as they always were. Only one Club wins any competition, no matter how much the losers have squandered in the attempt. And the losers' insistence on making their own failures as prohibitively expensive as they possibly can is extraordinary. To be sure, QPR are one of the worst examples, but by no means the only one.
Only to be explained, I should think, by the fact that they're laughing all the way to the bank.
It is fascinating to see how the demand for revenue has intensified as the sums of money pouring into the game have INCREASED. Clubs which insisted they needed another few million now find they can't cope even though they have a few tens of millions more. The more money the Premier League has negotiated, the more desperate every member Club becomes for money.
Shirt sponsorship, stadium sponsorship, kit sponsorship and as bowranger says, corralling people into the spending areas, along with any number of other expedients. No wonder there are doubts about atmosphere. The already wealthy players, managers and directors harrying supporters to deliver more and more millions for them to pocket, without delivering any more in the way of success than they did when they were on ÂŁ20 a week.
All that money hasn't even helped the big Clubs who have been perennial also-rans to replace the Clubs which are usually above them. Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Sunderland and most of the other big losers have barely made a single convincing title challenge in the whole lifetime of the Premiership. While City and Chelsea joined the elite with stadiums no bigger than most of the bigger losers.
If the Clubs actually competed on revenue, that would be different. If no more than ÂŁ10 million a week was divided between the winning Premiership Clubs, with each winning Club pocketing ÂŁ1 million per week, then revenue would reflect success.
But even then, whether it would make a big enough difference is questionable. A single goal can be the difference between the title and failure, and that kind of margin isn't easily quantifiable as a cash differential.
But at least under those circumstances we might see revenue going hand in hand with success - because it would be dependent on success.
No-one will advocate such a policy because there would be no point. Creating a stampede mentality where the Clubs just blindly charge towards money rather than trophies effectively covers up the incompetence of the majority, when only a handful of individuals know how to win.
Don't get me wrong. I have no objection to QPR playing the stunning football necessary to wildly increase our support, making even an enormous ground a necessity. But as some have pointed out, we are still struggling to fill one holding 18,000.
Trades Unions were - and are - pilloried for opposing efforts by management to keep wages down and improve productivity. But when do we ever hear arguments of that kind directed by the people running the Club at the players and the players' union?
And isn't the logic bogus anyway? Won't it be abandoned when we've moved? When all the Clubs have 15,000 extra seats? Will the need to increase revenue to compete more effectively be dropped then?
Or will the Clubs which already had bigger grounds before we moved begin their own rebuilding programmes to restore the differentials in their favour?
If that would be daft, we should ask ourselves why?
Will Derbys and Forests start building 50,000 capacity grounds to keep the QPRs in their place? If it makes sense now, it should still make sense when the average stadium size has increased significantly, shouldn't it?
If there is a ceiling, how do we know when we've reached it? The Club's average attendance historically, say? But that would be pretty small at QPR, and would hardly justify a move to a bigger ground. I very much doubt that our average attendance over our league history has been more than 18,000.
With City and Chelsea recently outperforming Newcastle and Arsenal in smaller grounds, and, Leicester joining them for this season at least, I can't see that revenue from ground size is having the impact it is imagined to have, any more than it did in the past, when the biggest grounds could hardly manage much more than a title or two between them in the best part of 100 years.
I think a bigger ground should have the support to fill it first, based on the know-how, experience and talent to keep it filled for its lifetime. If that is too unpredictable to calculate in advance, then the benefits from moving to bigger ground are too unpredicable to calculate in advance.
Once we have a decade or two of success behind us to show we CAN increase our support by the numbers required - using the season ticket waiting list - it might be different. It is striking that the clamour from the Board - over many decades - over the shortcomings of the Ground has never been matched by comparable efforts by them to identify their own shortcomings and address them.
So many excellent posts in this thread. Every point well made, and plenty of detail to flesh out the arguments put forward.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 17, 2016 22:46:08 GMT
From the Brent and Kilburn Times www.kilburntimes.co.uk/sport/football/cargiant_chief_slams_qpr_for_misleading_and_inaccurate_stadium_claims_1_4460656Cargiant chief slams QPR for âmisleading and inaccurateâ stadium claims16:00 17 March 2016 By Sean Gallagher QPR's co-chairman Tony Fernandes is not giving up hope of the Championship side building a stadium on Old Oak Common Cargiantâs managing director Tony Mendes has criticised QPR for misleading their fans with âinaccurate statementsâ about their hopes for a new stadium on Old Oak Common. Londonâs largest used car dealership company insist the information relayed to attendees at the clubâs supporters consultation committee and fan sites meeting a fortnight ago was incorrect. In an email sent to those who attended the Consultation Committee meeting at Loftus Road on March 2 Mendes released a statement saying: âWe were extremely annoyed to note the statements made by QPR that a new QPR stadium on Cargiant land is âthe only viable option on the tableâ and that a âstadium could sit side by side with the Cargiant developmentâ. âWe feel such misleading and inaccurate statements should be corrected so that you are aware of the actual position. âI can confirm that neither Cargiant, nor our development partner London & Regional Properties, are in any discussions with QPR and that we will not enter into any such discussions or agreements with the Club in any way, shape or form. âIn short, we will never agree to a stadium on any part of our land under any circumstances and we have made that position crystal clear to the Club, the GLA and the OPDC on numerous occasions.â The remarks made by Mendes certainly question QPRâs co-chairman Tony Fernandes after his recent comments made in an interview with the club that he was not giving up hope of acquiring the land needed to build a new stadium. He said: âI remain ever confident that weâll get to that chosen land. Itâs critical to the clubâs long-term security, because we just donât get enough revenue from this ground. âIs it dead? No. Absolutely not. Itâs very much alive. âWeâve had great meetings with the council leaders and the GLA. Iâm as optimistic as I ever am, but these things take time. Building an airline has been easier than building a stadium in west London, but we certainly wonât be giving up hope anytime soon, absolutely not.â Cargiant own a 46-acre site at Old Oak Common, known as Old Oak Park, which lies at the heart of the Old Oak Common regeneration area, covering a significant proportion of the land to the north of the Grand Union Canal. It is the largest privately owned site in the area, and the first to be delivered, which is central to unlocking the transformation of the wider area and will set the standard for the further regeneration to then follow. A spokesman whose company are involved in the Old Oak Common regeneration told the Times: âCargiant are not interested in going into discussions with QPR again about building a stadium in conjunction with their plans to develop in the Old Oak Common area. âThere is no battle with QPR as such, but they wanted to reaffirm this position after the recent comments made by the club. âAt no point have Cargiant been interested in working with QPR and donât wish to do so in the future. âTheir response to the recent fans meeting was simply to ensure people were aware of the current developments and to set out their position. âThat is that they are looking to deliver on their plans and proposals they have for the Old Oak Common regeneration and that does not include a new stadium for QPR.â
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 27, 2016 6:22:22 GMT
Follow-up request to support the Club's plans in the Offie FANS ASKED TO SUPPORT NEW STADIUM TO SECURE QPR'S FUTUREPUBLISHED 20:00 26th March 2016 by @qprfc Fans asked to support a new stadium at Old Oak to secure QPR's future and benefit West London ... Old Oak decision making process reaches another important milestone QPR fans asked to show support for new stadium to #KeepWestLondonRs New stadium vital to QPRâs long term sustainability The Mayor of London has launched the next phase of consultation on Old Oak, where QPR hope to build a new stadium, issuing a document known as the âLocal Planâ â the rules by which all planning applications are decided. The document is only a draft and calls on people, particularly West London residents, to comment so they can help shape the plans for their area. The draft Local Plan calls for small to large-scale âcatalystsâ that could act as a focus of early development, which could include âculture, sport, leisure uses, education and health institutions.â QPR have a plan to deliver a new QPR stadium, with educational, sporting and community facilities to benefit people in the area. The club shares the Mayorâs vision for Old Oak to become a vibrant place where people live, work and play, and return to time and time again. A new multifunctional stadium â a sports and entertainment hub that is used all year round â would drive the timescale to support the early delivery of homes, and the restaurants, shops and bars within it would bring jobs and opportunities to the area. It would also provide a proper base for the QPR in the Community Trust, allowing it to increase its highly regarded community outreach activity. If you want to ensure the long term sustainability of QPR and #KeepWestLondonRs then please complete the form below to tell the decision makers that a new stadium should specifically be included in the plans. The voice of every Râs fan will count, and having your say couldnât be easier. Alternatively, if you want to comment in more detail on the Mayorâs vision for Old Oak, you can visit the Local Plan website or email the OPDC on localplan@opdc.london.gov.uk. It is important to include your home address so they can contact you afterwards. If you are unable to view the below feedback form then please click HERE. Read more at www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-new-stadium-support-form-3000872.aspx#fbirviG67uH2pq3u.99
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Mar 27, 2016 7:49:34 GMT
The more money Clubs earn, the more they lose.
It's a fact that is proven season after season.
The revenue generation opportunities from additional spectators is dwarfed by the amount from sponsors and TV
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2016 7:52:48 GMT
+ Throw in certain costs to build a stadium (assuming don't get it for free) from selling Loftus Road/Developing it or having Stadium costs paid for from profits from other housing.
I don't know what a new Stadium and land in London would cost. Just say 150 Million... Then have interest payments on that 150 million, I presume...So even if will make more money from new Stadium...will take quite some time, I presume to pay off...
The one figure I havent seen is what kind of extra money per year (less costs of operating new stadium etc etc) are we talking about? From Extra sales of food/drinks/merchandise...extra tickets sold.... and of course leasing out the stadium for other events... Is it millions? Tens of millions a year?
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 27, 2016 8:28:39 GMT
The more money Clubs earn, the more they lose. It's a fact that is proven season after season. Certainly true of badly run clubs. Do we know how Burnley fared financially last season? The revenue generation opportunities from additional spectators is dwarfed by the amount from sponsors and TV True for Premier League clubs. Hoos said that once the parachute payments dry up, ticket sales would be our biggest revenue stream. I'd like to believe that the CEO knows his numbers and is not altering facts to strengthen his argument.
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Mar 27, 2016 11:16:17 GMT
But unless we're in the Premiership we won't need a new stadium as there still only be you, me and the other 13,000 regulars topped up with away fans and 'what shall I do today' spectators.
Burnley may or may not be an exception.
Over the last 20 years ALL of Britain's professional football leagues have run at a loss.
English football has a globally renowned capacity for increasing turnover but distributes its income unequally and cannot control its cost base. The game is awash with debt and plagued by insolvency.
The PL's annual turnover is ÂŁ2.3 billion the biggest of any football league in the WorldâŚ..and just about runs at a profit (around 4%).
The Championship is the second wealthiest tier and stands 9th in the financial world standings of turnover so there is the capacity to create income streams.
So whilst it is all well and good wanting a new stadium and it would be lovely not to have to sit with my legs around my ears, a 30,000 stadium with 17,000 people doesn't work.
I'm old enough to remember going to The White City which was a huge bowl and it was depressing.
I can see the day when TV companies pit virtual reality fans into areas of grounds where there are no spectators to make the game more appealing for the TV audience.
That's what it has in reality become, a competitor to the X Factor or Britains Got Talent. Games on a Thursday evening. Why?
Happy Easter!
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Mar 27, 2016 17:07:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 27, 2016 19:18:08 GMT
But unless we're in the Premiership we won't need a new stadium as there still only be you, me and the other 13,000 regulars topped up with away fans and 'what shall I do today' spectators. Burnley may or may not be an exception. Over the last 20 years ALL of Britain's professional football leagues have run at a loss. English football has a globally renowned capacity for increasing turnover but distributes its income unequally and cannot control its cost base. The game is awash with debt and plagued by insolvency. The PL's annual turnover is ÂŁ2.3 billion the biggest of any football league in the WorldâŚ..and just about runs at a profit (around 4%). The Championship is the second wealthiest tier and stands 9th in the financial world standings of turnover so there is the capacity to create income streams. So whilst it is all well and good wanting a new stadium and it would be lovely not to have to sit with my legs around my ears, a 30,000 stadium with 17,000 people doesn't work. I'm old enough to remember going to The White City which was a huge bowl and it was depressing. I can see the day when TV companies pit virtual reality fans into areas of grounds where there are no spectators to make the game more appealing for the TV audience. That's what it has in reality become, a competitor to the X Factor or Britains Got Talent. Games on a Thursday evening. Why? Happy Easter! The fact that we've had over 5,500 first timer visitors to Loftus Road would suggest that we could increase above the regular 13k, but you could well be spot on with the 17k you mention. Hoos also said that the 13k is sold almost immediately after the tickets go on general sale, it is the remaining 10% of the stadium which suffer from a restricted views which are harder to shift. I guess this aspect of a new stadium becomes a balancing act between empty spaces while we are in The Championship (or worse!) and being able to cash in should we stumble back in to the Premier League. Out of interest, the White City had an enormous capacity didn't it? Was the whole stadium opened up when we played there?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 31, 2016 7:02:58 GMT
The New QPR Stadium Section On the Official Site www.new-queens-park.co.uk/This from March 2015 Mar 20, 2015 at 3:37am WMIP SFS Quote Edit like Post Options Post by Macmoish on Mar 20, 2015 at 3:37am If you click on what they want you to send: GET INVOLVED NOW The decision making process about Old Oak has now reached an important phase. Get involved now to #KeepWestLondonRs The GLA have launched the next phase of consultation on Old Oak, issuing a document known as the 'Opportunity Area Planning Framework'. This will eventually become the Local Plan for the area - the rules by which all planning applications are decided. At the moment, this plan allows for a new QPR stadium at Old Oak as an 'early catalyst for regeneration and a vibrant focal point for the development'. But this plan is only a draft and things could change. If you want to #KeepWestLondonRs then please take a minute to tell the decision makers that a new stadium must be included in the plans. The voice of every Râs fan will count, and having your say couldn't be easier. Just fill out the form below before 14th April: Please tick the statements you agree with: 1. The regeneration of Old Oak is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and I fully support the exciting plans to fulfil the areaâs potential and deliver a new local thriving community. 2. With the major transport improvements not happening until 2026, Old Oak risks becoming a life-less dormitory unless something vibrant is created there much sooner. The consultation asks for suggestions on what could provide this âearly catalyst for regenerationâ and be a vibrant focal point (Q4). A new QPR stadium is the obvious choice. It would give people a reason to visit Old Oak and provide the focal point for community activity and further investment as well as providing local jobs. 3. QPR has over 100 years of history in west London. With Loftus Road too small, we need to find a bigger stadium. T he Old Oak area is the only suitable place we can go whilst remaining in west London. If the plans donât allow for a stadium, then QPR would be faced with the unimaginable prospect of having to leave west London. As a QPR fan I donât ever want this to happen. The consultation asks what the objectives of Old Oak regeneration should be (Qâs 1&2). I would like to see the objectives include an explicit reference to the development of a new stadium at Old Oak to secure the clubâs future in west London. Anything else? Please tell us! YOUR DETAILS Please send my comments as a response to the OAPF consultation to the GLA www.new-queens-park.co.uk/Read more: qprreport.proboards.com/thread/41161/qpr-old-consultation-stage-london#ixzz44SgUfNKu
|
|