|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 23, 2013 13:30:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Dec 23, 2013 20:40:13 GMT
I was watching the tele today, and I saw a ground which is quite close to the idea of what I would want as our new stadium... It's the "Allianz-Riviera Stadium" in Nice, France. It's brand new, and can hold approximately 36'000 fans, which is quite close to what we'd want to build. There is three tiers, two of 14'000 seats each, and a third upper tier of 8'000 seats that you can close if the demand is low. So basically, against smaller opponents, we'd have a 28'000 stadium that would look quite full, and against the bigger clubs we'd be able to host 35'000 + people. That would solve the problem that the ground would look half empty. Moreover, the ground took just over two years to be built, and costed 205'000'000 GBP which is what we'll be looking to spend. View AttachmentI quite like the design, and it would look good with blue seats. Two things I would change is that I would put the stands slightly closer to the pitch and maybe make the upper tier slightly bigger for a more balanced look. What do you guys think? For more photos or information: stadiumdb.com/stadiums/fra/allianz_rivieraHaven't seen that stadium before but must say it does look quite nice. Personally I would go for a slightly smaller version of either Ajax's or Juve's stadium. Both very enclosed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 2:39:55 GMT
Old oak isn't where the stadium was planned for and big fight to get the site it is planned for .. If baulked at Unigate , we'll be still at loftus road for next 50 yrs!
|
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Dec 24, 2013 12:10:32 GMT
Old oak isn't where the stadium was planned for and big fight to get the site it is planned for .. If baulked at Unigate , we'll be still at loftus road for next 50 yrs! That would make a lot of people happy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 21:04:47 GMT
Old oak isn't where the stadium was planned for and big fight to get the site it is planned for .. If baulked at Unigate , we'll be still at loftus road for next 50 yrs! That would make a lot of people happy. majority rules. i reckon if they were to take a poll of the fans that go to LR week after week , season after season, decade after decade....we would not be leaving LR. not out of sentimentality, but because they can see a bigger picture, a leap to far, to soon. as cpr keeps bleating on about  .....sort the training ground and academy out first . |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 26, 2013 9:54:39 GMT
A November 2013 (pre-QPR Announcement) piece re Development in Old Oak STANDARD Crossrail and HS2 superhub will bring £6bn boost to north-west London New station linking Crossrail and HS2 will turn wasteland into 'mini-Manhattan' A CG image showing the Crossrail line, and the new station, with the HS2 line behind a row of skyscrapers  Matthew Beard, Transport Editor Published: 26 November 2013 Updated: 15:38, 26 November 2013 Boris Johnson is to set up an Olympic-style regeneration agency to transform a rundown area into a thriving new district and deliver a £6 billion economic boost to London. The Mayor wants to use Crossrail links and the planned HS2 route — which will converge at Old Oak Common — to spur the creation of 80,000 homes and 20,000 jobs. By 2025 a “mini-Manhattan” of skyscrapers and apartments will shoot up around the station in north-west London. The Mayoral Development Corporation in Old Oak Common, known as MDC, will have the same powers that are being used to create a Games legacy in Stratford. It will begin planning work next year at the semi-industrial 195-acre site north of Wormwood Scrubs and Westway. The establishment of an MDC is subject to London Assembly approval. Old Oak Common is set to become London’s rail “superhub” within a decade, serving 250,000 passengers or the equivalent of Waterloo station. Deputy mayor for planning Sir Edward Lister is masterminding the plan to use these enhanced rail links as a spur to regeneration such as that achieved around King’s Cross station. The Mayor believes that HS2 bosses have failed to attract private investment, both at Old Oak Common and the high-speed line’s London terminus at Euston, and wants to lead the way. Sir Edward told the Standard: “The big opportunity from HS2 is regeneration, and this must not be missed. In London, Old Oak Common and Euston can be made into an entirely new city quarters delivering tens of thousands of homes and jobs for Londoners but only if we get the HS2 design and funding correct.” The MDC will be charged with improving other transport links in the area which is poorly connected, building new roads and bridges. The development will be funded through borrowing against enhanced land values which it is predicted will eventually be in line with Kensington & Chelsea. A levy will be charged on local businesses, creating a template for other schemes along HS2. The MDC — the first such body since the Olympics — will also hand the Mayor planning powers over the entire Old Oak Common site which straddles the boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing and Brent. The Mayor has presented HS2 bosses with a list of transport demands to maximise the benefits of Old Oak Common. It wants ministers to fund a new Overground station; to create a £25 million link with the existing West Coast mainline and to fund new roads, pathways and cycle routes. Isabel Dedring, deputy mayor for transport, said: “By stripping the cost out of HS2, we also risk stripping out the big increase in land values it can create, the very thing that can play a major role in funding the project. “If we get this right, Old Oak Common could be the next King’s Cross-St Pancras of the west for London.” A City Hall study into Old Oak Common has recommended: “A new metropolitan destination connected to existing public transport hubs and development opportunities and exploiting the assets of the Grand Union Canal and Wormwood Scrubs; overcoming severance and creating a coherent and legible street network; and optimising development, which may include some tall buildings, around the transport hubs.” The full MDC plan will be announced next month at a summit of HS2 chiefs hosted by the Mayor at City Hall. Yesterday MPs began the process of making the laws to enable work on the £50 billion HS2 scheme to begin with the publication of a 50,000 page bill. HS2 is planned to run between London and Birmingham by 2026 and on to Manchester and Leeds by 2033. www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/crossrail-and-hs2-superhub-will-bring-6bn-boost-to-northwest-london-8964438.html |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 26, 2013 10:01:40 GMT
And This was the Populous
December 13, 2013
Queens Park Rangers Football Club Unveils Plans for a New Stadium Designed by PopulousQPRFC has unveiled plans for a new 40,000-seater stadium, designed by Populous, as part of a major regeneration project in the Old Oak area in West London. The club has also confirmed it has: •Concluded a letter of collaboration with the GLA and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham to ‘bring forward an early and very significant private sector investment into the Old Oak Common regeneration area’. The news follows Boris Johnson’s recent announcement that turning Old Oak into a new world-class city quarter is to be one of his main regeneration priorities, and that a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) is to be set up to promote it. •With their partners, Stadium Capital Developments, entered into exclusivity land arrangements with Network Rail and other landowners who control major parts of Old Oak. •Plans to develop a 40,000 capacity football stadium at the heart of the regeneration area, and for this to be the catalyst that will bring about the creation of a residential and commercial area covering several hundreds of acres – larger than Canary Wharf – ultimately generating 50,000 jobs and 24,000 new homes. Chris Lee, Senior Principal and Director at Populous, currently working on QPR’s training facility and community sports hub commented “We have seen how sport has the power to bring communities together, and stadiums are one of the most important buildings a community can own. There is no doubt that the new development will become a new destination in which sport and entertainment will be an essential part.” Queens Park Rangers Stadium Bowl view Queens Park Rangers Stadium bowl view The scheme has the provisional title of ‘New Queens Park’. QPR Chairman, Tony Fernandes, said: “Loftus Road is – and always will be – a special place for the club and our supporters, but we need more than an 18,000 capacity. “With no option of expanding here, we have to look elsewhere and we welcome the Mayor’s and Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s commitment to regenerate the area, which includes an option to develop a new stadium at Old Oak as a key catalyst to bring forward redevelopment, cementing our future in this part of West London. “Not only will this give us a top quality stadium to cater for QPR’s needs as the club progresses and grows over the years ahead, but we are very excited about being the driving force behind creating one of the best new urban places in the world. “This will be the catalyst for the regeneration of a forgotten area – ultimately bringing new transport, 24,000 homes and at least 50,000 jobs. “It will create a vibrant new destination in London, boosting local businesses, attracting new visitors and tourism and creating a thriving community.” Queens Park Rangers new stadium designed by Populous masterplan view Queens Park Rangers new stadium designed by Populous masterplan view QPR CEO, Philip Beard, added: “We look forward to working with the Mayor and local authorities and we will, of course, be consulting our loyal and passionate supporters, as well as the local community, on our exciting plans early next year. We will look to build a stadium QPR fans and local residents can be proud of. “Loftus Road is renowned for its atmosphere and with the help of our supporters, replicating that at our new stadium will be one of our top priorities.” Chair of the HS2 Growth Taskforce – which is meeting in London today (December 13) to ensure the capital maximises the benefits from HS2 – Lord Deighton, said: “Regeneration only happens when the public and private sector work together. We welcome QPR and Stadium Capital Development’s commitment to the regeneration plan at Old Oak. Delivering modern transport infrastructure such as HS2 and Crossrail can be a catalyst for regeneration in London. The Government looks forward to working with key stakeholders on this.” Antony Spencer, who – alongside Sir Terry Farrell – is developing the master-plan for Old Oak, commented: “We envisage a new vibrant, mixed-use and high-quality entertainment and leisure development, which will turn this neglected but tremendously well-connected area into a new world-class city quarter. “We are talking to a number of world-class architects to design iconic tall buildings akin to New York, the Far East and London’s finest, as well as improving and incorporating the waterside environment of the Grand Union Canal. We have assembled a top-class professional team to design tens of thousands of new homes, a 350 bedroom luxury hotel and millions of square feet of entertainment and leisure focused commercial space including: retail, studios and offices, bars and clubs, restaurants, cinemas and other leisure accommodation.” The announcement comes after many months of discussions with the Greater London Authority and the Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Brent and Ealing. Spencer added: “We know we still have a long way to go in dealing with the planning, infrastructure funding challenges and business relocations but we are now in a position to forge ahead as we have secured strategic land holdings in excess of 100 acres. We are confident of securing a planning permission by early 2015 and starting development shortly afterwards. “We need, however, to work very closely with the public and private sector bodies, such as TfL and Network Rail, to enable the necessary infrastructure requirements. We look forward to working with the GLA, Hammersmith & Fulham and the local boroughs in a partnership approach between the public and private sectors. “The potential arrival of the MDC, with its planning and compulsory purchase powers, could dramatically speed up the delivery of this site.” QPR and SDC are acquiring significant land holdings in the area and have entered into exclusivity land arrangements with Network Rail and the Genesis Housing Group. David Biggs, Property Director at Network Rail, said: “We are pleased to be involved and able to support this exciting regeneration project along with QPR & SCD to unlock the potential of this challenging, railway-dominated site. SCD have prior experience of working constructively with the railway industry, and we believe that working with them holds the best opportunity for the early development of this regeneration area which otherwise may not be brought forward for many years. This project and our approach of partnering and releasing underutilised railway land forms a core part of our strategy to maximise the value from our existing assets to reduce the cost of rail to the taxpayer.” John Carleton, Executive Director of Markets and Portfolio, at Genesis, said: “We are very pleased to be involved in this exciting regeneration project, which is being led by QPR and Stadium Capital Developments.” ***ENDS*** Populous is the world’s leading sports and entertainment architecture practice that specialises in creating environments that draw people together for unforgettable experiences. Over the past 30 years, the company has designed some of the world’s most famous and recognisable sporting and entertainment venues, including Sochi 2014 Fisht Stadium, London 2012 Olympic Stadium, Wembley Stadium, Emirates Stadium, Soccer City, the O2 Arena and the redevelopment and roof of the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Currently, the company is working on a wide variety of projects globally such as the 2014 World Cup, Rio de Janeiro 2016, the Olympique Lyonnais and French Rugby Federation (FFR) new stadia and several projects in Russia for the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2018 World Cup. Contact details – Populous / 14 Blades Court | Deodar Road | London | SW15 2NU / +44 (0)20 8874 7666 / info@populous.com /www.populous.com For more information please contact: •Patricia Fernandez – +44 (0)20 8874 7666 patricia.fernandez@populous.com •Robert Pine/ Chantelle Osborne + 44 (0)20 7247 8334 robert@ing-media.com / chantelle@ing-media.com populous.com/news/2013/12/13/queens-park-rangers-football-club-unveils-plans-for-a-new-stadium-designed-by-populous/
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 26, 2013 10:04:43 GMT
And can see the other stadiums designed by Populous populous.com/This re Emirates Europe's most successful Football Stadium Emirates Stadium London 2006 CHALLENGE. Despite Highbury being one of the most famous football stadia in the world, Arsenal realized that in order to be able to compete with the elite clubs in Europe they needed a larger stadium that would generate increased revenue through increased capacity and hospitality spaces. A site was identified, close to the existing stadium – the challenge was to create a master plan which could fit the new stadium on this difficult site, deliver the maximum area for residential development and meet the local council’s requirements for the provision of social housing. INNOVATION. The new ground provides a unique mix of commercial and hospitality spaces that are valuable on both match and non match days, when they cater for a wide range of conferences, exhibitions and events. The curved glass, concrete and steel mesh paneled facades of the stadium rise between the terraced streets, offering a series of dramatic views of the venue to the approaching visitor. Above, the roof is supported on just eight cores, allowing the slender roof plane to float above the robust facade of the building below. Within the grounds, our brand activation team have brought their innovative approach to wayfinding and signage, as part of a major naming rights sponsorship. IMPACT. The figures of this development speak for themselves: Arsenal’s match day revenue increased from £37.4m in their old Highbury stadium to over £90m in the new Emirates Stadium (equivalent to an additional income of over £1m per match), and that excludes other commercial revenue. In addition, converting Highbury to residential units delivered £157m in 2011 alone. This financial success meant Arsenal could clear all their bank loans in 2010 and have been able to emerge as a club with arguably the best financial footing of any club in Europe, applauded by UEFA as the defining model for other clubs to follow in meeting the requirements of the UEFA Financial Fair Play initiative. The widespread urban regeneration that has come about thanks to the stadium and wider master plan (including the provision of 2000 new homes, more than half of which are affordable homes) has been recognized with many awards. populous.com/project/emirates-stadium/ |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 26, 2013 13:24:35 GMT
And the QPR "Partner" in the Stadium Development (and beyond?) "..Queens Park Rangers Football Club and our partners, Stadium Capital Developments, have concluded a letter of collaboration with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham to ‘bring forward an early and very significant private sector investment into the Old Oak Common regeneration area.’..." /www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/121213-new-stadium-plans-1232327.aspx#yORkCTgr8HL68x9t.99
STADIUM CAPITAL HOLDINGSwww.stadiumcapitalholdings.co.uk/Welcome We invest in urban communities, developing and holding property for the long term. We develop and regenerate using our market expertise and creativity, and we invest to achieve long term growth. We use our own capital, but also have access to UK and overseas capital with joint venture partners. Stadium Capital Holdings has been at the heart some of London’s major regeneration schemes over the last decade and more. We are respected for our record of combining original ideas and persistence, and for forging effective partnerships. Stadium Capital Developments is an associated company of Stadium Capital Holdings and plans to develop a 40,000 capacity football stadium for Queens Park Rangers. It will be the catalyst that will bring about the creation of a residential and commercial area covering several hundreds of acres - larger than Canary Wharf – ultimately generating 50,000 jobs and 24,000 new homes. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 26, 2013 13:37:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 30, 2013 8:07:33 GMT
Flashback April 17, 2013
NEW QPR STADIUM UPDATEYesterday, The Guardian reported on a new 15 million pound Loan taken out by QPR and there were concerns about QPR Financial losses and growing debts. Today a tweet from Chairman Fernandes offered a brief explanation. Tony Fernandes @tonyfernandes4h: "Loan for qpr is for new stadium. Next 2 weeks will be hopefully good news. But work is starting. We will not say anymore on stadium." This is really the first stadium update since the beginning of the season, when the Chairman and CEO were talking about a new stadium and something being announced within weeks. (See for example, The Guardian in July 2012)
At the recent QPR Fan Forum in February, QPR Chairman CEO, Philip Beard made reference to a new stadium, but made no hint that a decision was near."The stadium is a bit more of a challenge. I think Chelsea and a few other clubs have been looking for years to move. What we have got is a group of owners committed to doing it. 100 per cent. One of the things we haveto face is as great as this place is, and you only have to listen to the comments tonight, it is just not what is required for a club that has aspirations like we have all got to stabilise our position in the Premier League and kick on. It will take time to get right. The craziness of trying to talk about that too much in the press, even Tony when he tweets about stuff, they will pick up on it. Trust me, land values don’t go down too much when people hear about you wanting to buy their land or house. The reality is we have got to keep ourselves movingforward but it is the medium-to-long-term goal of the club to get to a state-of-the-art stadium for the club." Beard also said re stadium "There are one or two opportunities that we have got where we think the political support will be 100 per cent as actually a regeneration of an area or a piece of land is something that they would like us to do. " B eard also pledged at that Fan Forum "... ... I will make a promise with the LSA, or whoever represents the club, is that we will have a fans’ group to decide how we build and put together the configuration for a new stadium. ...Fan Forum Report www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/120213-fans-forum-in-full-653298.aspx?pageView=full#anchoredqprreportblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/qpr-chairman-tony-fernandes-loan-was.html
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 30, 2013 13:11:25 GMT
Beardspeak 1.
"Trust me, land values don’t go down too much when people hear about you wanting to buy their land or house".
(a) they don't go down 'too much'. Now, this means that the values (not specified) of land (not specified), whether or not they go up (not specified, so let's take that as 'no', or maybe 'yes', (not mentioned)) - these values don't go DOWN TOO much (not specified, but 'much' might be taken as meaning some figure between 0 and the distance between Beard and the galaxy M21 in Andromeda (not specified, but any galaxy and/or beard might be substituted (remember this will be in light years, so rather more miles than QPR have won trophies/matches since Beard beamed down) - where was I? -
(b) .... ah, yes, when 'people' (a person, two or more persons, some persons, a NUMBER of persons (number not specified) ... when they HEAR about you ...
'wanting to buy their land or house'.
Is he saying that the cost of the land and property is going DOWN, but not too much? Or is it a figure of speech intended to impress QPR supporters who like all the good news to be non-specific, so when prices are, in fact, going to SOAR, to be told that they will not go DOWN by too MUCH?
Why? Because they will wonder about Mr Beard's bona fides at talking this up ever since he came to QPR, knowing that prices would go through the roof, and QPR would have to pay them.
Surely that isn't WHY he came to QPR, is it? To GET those prices as high as they can be. No clever, behind-the-scenes deal that saw Rangers grab an ideal site at a rock bottom price, perhaps through intermediaries. No, let's tell the world, and see everyone with a piece of land - what is the expression? tell us the price isn't going to go DOWN too much?
Let's suppose that this is planet earth, not planet spaceman Beard. Let's suppose the price has gone up and not down. Beard is saying this is something QPR should be delighted about? QPR, the buyer. The Club that will pay TWO HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS for a stadium that it won't even own? And that will sell off its last remaining asset so Beard's cronies can cash it in? OK, they can't. Although they own debts which are charged to the ground, that £15 million has been borrowed to pay for the Ground.
Now, is that the price of the site of the ground BEFORE Fernandes and Beard began to talk it up? Or does Beard think that at earth values, when down means up, £15 million is more or less £200 million, given the odd £185 million?
Strangely, that is what West Ham are supposed to be paying to play in the Olympic Stadium, the model for the Old Oak development, and so unsuitable, that it can't pay its way already. All those multi-users snapping it up, and it couldn't survive without West Ham. I've survived all my life without West Ham.
So how can Beard boast about how much he and his pals have inflated prices BEFORE the site has been acquired, unless Fernandes and Beard actually represent the people who are SELLING the site. They are the beneficiaries, aren't they? And wasn't Fernandes interested in buying into that other inflationary monster, the Olympic Stadium and its 'complex'.
Surely Beard, newly arrived in the real world from outer space, and still mastering English - as well as logic and common sense - is telling us that the people who should be happy here are the people whose land and property values will be inflated, in part by the price, inflated to £200 million by Fernandes and Beard, that QPR will have to pay for a Ground that QPR won't own.
And a Club which has been money hand faster than ever since Mittal's assortment of cronies arrived.
Is this £200 million cost because the price 'doesn't go down too much' when you've been talking it up for years.
Mean of those journalists, as if he hadn't damaged sufficiently whatever point he was struggling not to make, to bring up Populous and Savills and others involved in the the Olympic Stadium, NOT EVEN DESIGNED FOR FOOTBALL, but so incapable of funding itself from all the activities Mr Beard thinks essential for a FOOTBALL ground, that it had to cap in hand round London looking for a FOOTBALL Club to occupy it.
At a cost of £13 billion. Not to the 'other activities', or to the 'commercial interests', sponsors, big business or anyone else. The money went INTO the pockets of big business and the politicians' pals, like Atos and the security company that didn't bother providing any.
No, it cost the PUBLIC £13 billion. But that wasn't the ORIGINAL cost, surely? Surely it was a vastly INFLATED cost, because all the big companies would make far more MONEY FOR THEMSELVES if the cost just went up and up and up. And if the Stadium proved useless, and not even viable in the form it was built, well, there was even MORE money for them.
so we've returned to Mr Beard's original, if somewhat obscure, point, about the COST (naturally, not specified), since he knows nothing about FOOTBALL, and clearly sees QPR's occupation of someone else's ground as more or less incidental (except for that £200 million, I suppose).
If the supposed cost of the Olympic Stadium complex white elephant inflated so dramatically, and if naming the Ground and naming the shirts and sponsors and multi-use is SO necessary to finance such projects, why on earth were the public obliged to pay ANYTHING?
And in this case, since QPR are just making use of the Ground, like any member of the public, without ownership or revenue from the site or the stadium, even from the naming rights ...
... WHY MUST THE CLUB PAY ANYTHING? Tenants don't buy the house they live in, and THEN pay rent. Surely all those activities will pay for the Ground. Why do they need it at all, come to that. If all those non-football activities need a football ground, why can't QPR play in a non-football facility, like a clothes shop, or a bus depot? If the stadium design isn't adequate to fund a stadium 'business' like a football club, but is ideal for conferences, rock concerts and other things, why not?
Surely the money the 'investors' made out of the Olympics was the £13 billion the public paid them to build stadiums nobody actually wants, or can use. If they believed that the place would make money, why not run it as a going concern, and get their £13 billion from CUSTOMERS, like any proper business.
OK, the Olympic stadium is out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but good rail connections. Do people get off trains and wander around the area at rail hubs? Surely the whole point of a transport hub is to get people AWAY.
I'm right, aren't I? Crewe are the biggest Club in the country, because they have such good rail links, and such good shops.
Of course, there is another consideration. The ground, like Loftus Road, appears to be getting smaller. It would, I suppose. If rock concerts and conferences won't pay for it, maybe it will go on getting smaller until LR seems huge by comparison.
But they can always put up the prices if they do that. And put the seats closer together. With less legroom. The major changes at Loftus Road since business-minded millionaires started running the Club (Thompson, and Beard's pals, Bhatia, Fernandes and Mittal).
Sorted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 16:09:34 GMT
Queens Park Rangers (QPR) has turned to Macfarlanes and Lawrence Graham (LG) to advise the football club on its plans to develop a new 40,000-seat stadium in Old Oak.The new stadium, which would replace its current 18,000-capacity Loftus Road ground, would be a central tenet of a wider regeneration of the Old Oak area in West London. The football club is working with partners Stadium Capital Developments – an associated company of Stadium Capital Holdings, which invests in and develops urban regeneration projects. The pair have agreed to collaborate with the Greater London Authority and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on the massive project. The club reportedly expects to seek planning permission towards the end of this year or in early 2015, planning to move into the new stadium for the 2018/19 football season. Macfarlanes is advising QPR on the deal, led by commercial head Jeremy Courtenay Stamp and head of commercial real estate Ian Nisse.Meanwhile, Lawrence Graham has been instructed by the club on planning matters, with partner Clare Fielding being assisted by senior associate Nicky Bradbury. David Cooper of planning boutique David Cooper & Co is also advising the football club on the transaction. London mayor Boris Johnson has backed the wider regeneration project, working with the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Brent and Ealing on plans to develop a residential and commercial area at Old Oak covering several hundreds of acres – larger than Canary Wharf. The area would generate 50,000 jobs and 24,000 homes, as well as housing a new station – the largest in the country – expected to handle more than 250,000 passengers a day. It would connect to central London in 10 minutes thanks to Transport for London, and to Birmingham and Paris via HS1 services. If plans go ahead, the area would be redeveloped by 2043, with the station open in 2026. Background to this deal In 2011 former QPR shareholder Bernie Ecclestone turned to Withers for advice on the sale of his stake in the club to Malaysian businessman Fernandes. The acquiror instructed a team from Macfarlanes on the matter, led by commercial head Jeremy Courtenay Stamp (19 August 2011). Fernandes has returned to a cohort co-led by the same adviser to advise on the commercial aspects of the stadium deal this time round. Stadium Capital Developments is an old hand at football stadium regeneration projects, having been involved in the regeneration of Highbury as part of Arsenal Football Club’s move to the Emirates stadium. The investment and development company has fielded the same team of lawyers as it used on the Arsenal project on its latest endeavour. Clare Fielding advised on the Arsenal project from her former firm Slaughter and May, while David Cooper took a lead role while he worked at Jones Day – taking the planning mandate with him when he left to start his own boutique in 2004 (1 March 2004). www.thelawyer.com/news/city-latest-deals/macfarlanes-and-lg-score-roles-on-qprs-new-stadium-bid/3014519.article?
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jan 7, 2014 12:53:43 GMT
Nothing about QPR in any of it.
If the Club owned the Ground, all the other businesses and activities would actually PAY QPR to use the Club's facilities. If it owned the project, all the rents would be the Club's.
But in Beard's vision, the Club will actually PAY to use its own home, while it won't get a penny from any of the other businesses which use it.
And this is because Beard takes it for granted that the Club is so small, so feeble, and so poorly supported, that EVEN IF IT MORE THAN DOUBLES its average attendance, it can't pay its way.
Every penny the Club pays out is GUARANTEED. The players and managers have contracts which are cast-iron. They don't have to be good, they don't have to take a game, or play a game, to get the money. The lawyers, the building companies, the development corporations and all the rest will have cast-iron contracts guaranteeing how much they get.
Why don't the losers running the Club GUARANTEE its income? All the big talk about what businessmen they are, and the only deals they are capable of doing are deals which benefit someone else.
Someone else will get Loftus Road, good for that someone else, but not for QPR. Someone else will own the new Ground. Beard & Co representing someone else again. Someone else will get the stadium sponsorship, not QPR. Someone else will get the revenue from other activities, not QPR.
The money QPR has lost year in year out in its association with Mittal goes into SOMEONE ELSE'S pocket. They don't even have to be good. To be successful. Still less to be profitable for the Club. they can be utterly useless, and the Club just offers them MORE.
Fernandes was making LOANS to put money into the players' pockets when QPR had £40 million a year coming in.
Now, why is that? Why does Mr 'cheapest always wins' do this? If he represents QPR, why isn't QPR profiting as handsomely as Mr Fernandes (or, for that matter, Mr Mittal)?
All they guarantee is that they will lose QPR's home, its ONLY asset, worth far more than Beard, Mittal, Fernandes and all the other losers put together.
A fixed asset worth even £5 million must be vastly more valuable than people with no track record who lose an average of what? £20 million a year.
How big was the debt when Paladini floundered into oblivion? £20 million? What is it now? £89 million? £100 million? Five times as much. Or is it even more? If they are already loading the cost of the new Ground onto the old ground, how much does the Club owe, as part of its participation in this 'project'?
Gregory bought talent cheaply, they buy rubbish expensively.
This doesn't make sense if they represent the Club, but it does make sense if they represent the people who are taking tens of millions out of the Club every year.
Indeed, they've lost so much money, even helping themselves to the Club's assets will leave QPR with vast losses.
And that at a ground the Club doesn't even have to pay for, and where it might expect to receive the money from renting it out for other activities, however humble.
It won't with the new one, will it?
How will the Club's financial position be improved by paying for tens of thousands of empty seats. After all, we've had much lower attendances than we're getting now for years, indeed decades, at a stretch. But we've never had much bigger attendances than we get now, except for the odd week every 10 or 20 years.
12,000 in a ground holding 40,000 (down from 45,000, I wonder where THAT will end?) Like Fayed? With 25,000, £200 million of debt. And another sale to another millionaire followed by six more managers, a couple more millionaires, more debt, and the endless talk about moving to another site making 'all the difference'.
The contradictions swallow them up more and more quickly now. They must lose more and more money to make an impression, with the result that Gregory's 23 years in charge is remoter than ever. They simply can't cope with their own incompetence. It was difficult for Gregory to cope with the challenge and he had talent. He was addicted to tinkering with the Ground, and moving, and merging, and invariably got it wrong. The wrong changes at the wrong time, with the wrong effect.
Now the ordinary discipline of spending money the Club earns - from attendances, results and developing talent and selling it on - has disappeared, and every Club thinks it is really some other much bigger much more successful Club.
Interesting how Fayed never got anywhere near emulating Jim Gregory's achievement at QPR. He lost money hand over fist, and never got close. He talked Real Madrid and United but got 25,000, and lost £200 million of Fulham's money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 10, 2014 8:00:19 GMT
A CAUTIOUS WELCOME FOR QPR’S NEW STADIUM PLANSthetwounfortunates.com/a-cautious-welcome-for-qprs-new-stadium-plans/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-cautious-welcome-for-qprs-new-stadium-plans
The Two Unfortunates
A CAUTIOUS WELCOME FOR QPR’S NEW STADIUM PLANSBy LANTERNE ROUGE on JANUARY 10, 2014 Just before Christmas, Queens Park Rangers announced ambitious plans to move into a new stadium by the start of the 2018-19 season, signalling the arrival of an off-field component to Tony Fernandes’ much debated generosity to the club. Partners include the company Stadium Capital Developments and the plan is to acquire land holdings in conjunction with Network Rail and the Genesis Housing Group, the arena part of the much vaunted redevelopment of the Old Oak Common neighbourhood of west London. That development is a hub for the government’s plans for High Speed Rail 2, the pros and cons of which we discussed last month – the result will be a rebuild that will best Canary Wharf for size while three local authorities have been kept abreast of the plans – Ealing, Brent and Hammersmith & Fulham. Earlier this week, Law firm Macfarlanes came on board in an advisory capacity, while the tousled features of Boris Johnson have also been prominent in boosting the overall scheme. An initial assessment of the prospects might be gloomy, albeit partially fuelled by jealousy from fans of other clubs whose financial endowment is less lovely. At a 40,000 capacity, the mooted New Queens Park Stadium would be only 2,000 shy of Stamford Bridge and not even the most jaundiced of Rangers’ supporters would place QPR on the same plane as their rivals especially given Loftus Road’s current house room of 18,439 and season high gate of 18,171 for the visit of ex-coach Steve McClaren’s Derby County in November. Indeed, only 15,807 made the trip to the Bush for the visit of Doncaster Rovers on New Year’s Day. Nor is the area around the stadium necessarily core territory for the club – London support tends to be patchwork and it’s arguable that Rangers draw much of their core constituency from distant Hillingdon and other outer boroughs – an area once suggested for a new home. The immediate vicinity of Loftus Road is QPR through and through but Chelsea fans are legion as they are in most places unfortunately. Then there will be the slow development of the HS2 project itself – a glacial undertaking that won’t see services run until 2026 at the earliest – indeed, that’s if they even happen at all – The Economist’s excellent The World in 2014 overview stuck its neck out to the extent of predicting that HS2 will be scrapped. However, these question marks can largely be neatly rebuffed while there are a score of other benefits that lead one to provide the project with a tentative thumbs-up. For the construction of a shiny new home can revolutionise crowds at previously unheralded clubs and if Rangers don’t quite fill Loftus Road most of the time, they would be likely to do so more often than not a level up – and given the extraordinary investment in the playing staff, that’s pretty damn likely to be next season. We’ve seen at Bolton, Reading and Hull the impact of Kevin Costner’s ‘If I build it, they will come’ strategy even if the risk of financial over reaching can provide an unappetising accompaniment and a well marketed arena close to a host of appealing west London amenities should prove attractive. QPR should also be able to secure market share from their disliked neighbours – this excellent piece from Sam Wallace commented admiringly on New Queens Park and asked whether Chelsea have missed a trick in developing similar, albeit much larger plans. The corner of the capital in which the stadium will be located has been on the up for a while – the mammoth Westfield shopping centre has been up and running for a while now, there is a great degree of wealth surrounding the low income housing estates of White City while the promise is 50,000 new jobs and 24,000 homes. Then there is the cachet of a neighbourhood popularised in song by the likes of The Clash and Blur, the success of the Notting Hill Carnival, excellent middle-eastern restaurants aplenty and a closeness to another new train route – the much delayed Crossrail. Indeed, Fernandes is to be congratulated for eschewing the out of town model which is starting to look pretty hackneyed these days. Perhaps the most appealing thing about the whole project is the closeness of the arena to the club’s roots, Rangers having turned out at two nearby grounds, the 40,000 capacity Horse Ring in Park Royal and the 60,000 park Royal Ground which they moved to in 1915. The former was replaced by a Guinness brewery, a company that was to sponsor the club in the latter years of the twentieth century. Fernandes has shown a keen awareness of history and the way football culture is moving in looking to locate his club within the texture of city streets. In short, West London is trendy and if the description of QPR as a ‘boutique’ club is laughable, they do have a certain style that goes all the way back to Gerry Francis, Stan Bowles and Tony Currie. So it’s an overwhelmingly exciting prospect although one or two pitfalls lie in wait and need to be avoided. Aside from the obvious possibility of Fernandes pulling the plug, many such developments can be alarmingly uniform these days and the claim that this will be a new vibrant ‘entertainment quarter’ will make those who remember Ken Bates’ Chelsea Village shudder. Let’s also hope that the likes of Frankie & Benny’s and Nando’s don’t dominate the concessions – west London deserves better. Nor is the prospect of a 350 room luxury hotel likely to be of particular benefit to the community while we shall watch with interest to see if those new homes turn out to be for invading yuppies with existing folks forced out to Hayes and elsewhere – the statements behind the Old Oak Common project indicate that the new housing will be ‘affordable’ – we shall see about that, especially given adviser Lord Deighton’s claim that ‘ regeneration only happens when the public and private sector’ work together. Also, while some fans have hoped for an easier time of it parking on match day, Rangers really should ignore this and follow the Arsenal model, obliging supporters to take public transport. Let’s put aside any cynicism for now however and give New Queens Park the benefit of the doubt – for to grow as a club, QPR certainly need more capacious surroundings than Loftus Road can currently provide, characterful though it is. thetwounfortunates.com/a-cautious-welcome-for-qprs-new-stadium-plans/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-cautious-welcome-for-qprs-new-stadium-plans
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jan 13, 2014 12:01:08 GMT
A well written article, but it turns the logic of football on its head.
It would make perfect sense if we were brilliant. If QPR had achieved mastery of the game, albeit in a more restricted fashion. If we had 15 years of unparallelled achievements in the top flight of the Premiership, so we knew not 'where' the support would come from, but WHY it would come. Because the Club was one that people wanted to see. On the pitch. This issue is never even mentioned, let alone addressed, not because it can be easily dealt with once there are 20,000 empty seats, but because EVERYONE KNOWS the seating won't make any difference.
We BEAT Clubs with far more seats. We won promotion a couple of years ago over Clubs with far more seats. Works, doesn't it!
If it did, and if a project like this COULD work, why on earth would they do it like this? Why wouldn't they create the SUPPORT - and therefore the money and means of realising future success at a much higher level - AT ONCE. So they would know, like Arsenal, exactly HOW MANY seats to put in.
Winning is easy enough. All you have to do is score more goals than your opponents. Win more matches. Outplay them. Not for a few years but for a decade, two decades.
THAT is the easy bit. If it is going to be a piece of cake in five or ten years' time, it is a piece of cake now. We don't have to win the title all at once. Just overperform massively to the extent required. And stop all the other Clubs doing the same. Because that is the nightmare that shadows all the wannabes, all the useless Ken Bateses out there, who know it all, but who have never done it. Oh yeah, they've lost money, and rebuilt stands, and all sorts of fantastic nothings.
But they don't own their opponents, they can't stop their opponents winning matches that THEIR Club isn't even INVOLVED in. Even when we win, rival Clubs are winning too. How do we stop them? How do WE make sure THEY sign players inferior to ours?
Virtually TREBLING the capacity (at 45,000) - and certainly more than doubling it (at the new ceiling of 40,000, shades of Fayed already) - will have no effect at all. Arsenal did it the other way round. They ALREADY HAD 60,000 supporters. And they waited YEARS before they developed a ground to hold them. A ground which didn't hold one single supporter more than they knew they could attract.
To be a top club, you must be there or thereabouts when you are NOT overperforming. That is what always prevented smaller Clubs from repeating any (extremely rare) success they achieved. ANY Club looks good on its better days. The winners are the ones who can raise the level of the ORDINARY. That is a different matter entirely. To bring in bigger crowds when you're struggling. And to go on doing so. To do that, you need a long list of achievements.
Geniuses and footballing masterminds might do it. But nobody knows who they are. Nobody is able to predict who will come out on top next. The Championship is full of Clubs with modernised, rebuilt or new stadiums who can NEVER be successful in them. One Club could, but when a new stadium is the first requirement of the LOSERS, it is remarkable that all the sheep just can't wait to follow them into oblivion. The more sheep there are, the more average the average is. In a league of 4, nobody would be outside the Champions League placings. But with dozens, most never even get near it.
But that is why they do what they do, of course, and start with the stadium. They are sheep. To be different, well, they wouldn't know where to begin. To do what Busby did, Shankly, Revie, Ramsey or Clough and Taylor did, they have no idea. But they can run up debts putting up another BUILDING which will prevent any embryonic talent EVER transforming the Club.
Look at QPR. The bigger the expectations, the more unlikely it is that ANY manager will be here long enough to be a Wenger, let alone a more consistently successful manager. TWhen the hype is far bigger than the reality, managers are expected to measure up to the hype, not to the Club's actual resources, actual capabilities. But they are the things a good manager must make use of. Every week we play Clubs which, for a brief time, were the talk of the football world. Preston had modernised, were going to be in the top flight for years, new systems, a great manager, visionary owners, back to glory. All talk. Burnley too, Ipswich, Charlton, Wolves, Leeds you name them. A spending spree or two, a few seasons in the Premiership if they're lucky, and the sheer number of the other Clubs, the merciless 3 up 3 down sees them replaced almost at once and drifting further and further from the limelight. Does anyone remember how sophisticated Preston's set-up was?
And Reading? The new ground is still well short of the record attendance at the old ground. Fulham, nowhere near. Wolves new wonder stadium only holds what they could get in behind one goal at the old ground. All of those Clubs. Derby, Forest. Even Arsenal. Even United, for god's sake.
Strange that we haven't developed a system for identifying talent. We could have started doing that 20 years ago. Learning what it is that makes some Clubs, some players, some managers different.
But we don't even bother. We've stopped finding young talent. And we don't have the tradition on the pitch in the first team to keep them long even when we turn up the odd one. They're gone at once.
Like the bigger ground, we sign has-beens. We look at someone on the way down, or usually, on the way out. We don't help them make their name, we help them lose it, and lose ours in the process.
And the worst thing of all is that we daren't admit it. We daren't SAY that that is what we're doing, and we can't PAY them on the basis of what they achieve with us. Because that would give the game away. We must pretend that they WILL be good. So we must pay them on the basis of how good we IMAGINE they will be. And when you want to be good, and everyone does, that's top dollar. To admit that we can't afford the talent to make sense of the stadium nightmare Beard & Co are cooking up would be to expose them to questions as to their real motives in doing so.
All the people mentioned in the articles above who ISN'T QPR will get their money whether the Ground is of any use to QPR at all. But the Club is guaranteed nothing. And gets nothing. If there is money to make QPR won't make it, because QPR will pay and pay and OWN NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 15, 2014 14:07:36 GMT
TonyIncenzoTALKSPORT @tonyincenzo I've just carried out an extensive interview for @fcbusiness with @officialqpr chief exec @philipb1 about the exciting new stadium plans QPR REPORT qprreport 16m @tonyincenzo @fcbusiness @officialqpr @philipb1 With tough questions about who'll actually OWN the "#QPR" Stadium? And size, etc? TonyIncenzoTALKSPORT @tonyincenzo 13m qprreport @fcbusiness @officialqpr @philipb1 Every aspect was discussed Mr Report! |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2016 9:12:48 GMT
Flashback 3 Years
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2017 9:44:24 GMT
Flashback 4 Years today
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 12, 2019 8:25:25 GMT
Flashback 6 years
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Dec 12, 2019 19:21:22 GMT
Haha, very good 75 - but are you allowed to mention politics on Polling Day?? |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2022 9:22:33 GMT
Flashback 9 years
|
|
.....sort the training ground and academy out first . 
