|
Post by sharky on Feb 19, 2015 21:57:56 GMT
Remember this quote Mac. They may well go back on it some time in the future. Told you they were the enemy. That is unless you don't want a new stadium at Old Oak that is.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 19, 2015 22:08:48 GMT
Cargiant really not looking good here, bad PR for them incoming.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 19, 2015 22:39:26 GMT
Remember the TF Golden Rule, ha4 It would be interesting to know how much land QPR have actually purchased at Old Oak. I don't think the Holding company has bought any land at all. I think they have exclusivity talks on going with current land owners but as far as I know no land has been purchased yet. I imagine they won't unless they're permission is granted. They are still in a position where they could walk away. Has a (land) holding company for the development been set up? Apart from QPR Holdings, nothing has come to the surface. He's still portraying this as if the problems are all coming from Car Giant - just look at the language used. The reality is they own the land we want to build on and they have their own development plans for it. If we want to do a deal with them then the onus is on us to actually do a deal instead of bitching about CG. The problem for QPR is that the owners have created such a financial mess that the only way out is to develop not just a stadium but a shed load of housing to sell and pay off our debts. That's why they need such an incredibly large, and difficult to assemble, piece of land. I'd be very surprised if QPR FC see an actual penny from any development, anywhere, at any time in our future, ever. So it seems that Car Giant rejected QPR's offer for their land after 6 months of behind closed doors negotiations, Uncle Tony and his team then tried to bully them into selling it by using the QPR fanbase, which is not working and now as a last resort after failing to grab the land they're now, asking to share it. Why should Car Giant share it, they own it 100%, it's theirs, why would they give any of it up? The decision is really out of Uncle Tony's hands and all he can do is submit his proposal, have it weighed up against Car Giant's and then the relevant authorities will make the decision. There's no real way of guaging which way it will go, planning decisions are often unpredictable and baffling, it just could have been handled in a much more professional and private manner. If Uncle Tony gets his permission granted, Car Giant will simply sell it at the value that that permission gives it, so they really do have the stronger hand in all of this. Their tactic might be too simply get to that stage where the massive value is realised and then sell, we really don't know. Uncle Tony just wanted to buy it on the cheap and now Car Giant have to prove their asking price, if they ever intend to sell it, which the permission will give them. Prefer the M&S Wharehouse my-self, much closer to Loftus Road, retains our excellent transport links and let's them steal Loftus Road away from the club assets whilst giving us a decent alternative to keep us as tenants.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 19, 2015 23:04:08 GMT
I'm really confused here, can someone explain...
Cargiant do not own all the land we want for the stadium right? They only own a tiny amount of the whole Old Oak Common area right? How can they come out and say that a stadium is not viable?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 19, 2015 23:04:41 GMT
West London Sport West London Sport - Sports news in west london As featured on NewsNow: Sport news QPRFernandes told “no means no” over Old Oak Fernandes says extended Harlington now looks an attractive option. 19/02/2015 By David McIntyre Cargiant managing director Tony Mendes has insisted the company has no intention of reopening talks with QPR over the Old Oak regeneration – and that the club’s plans to build a stadium are “not viable”. Rangers’ Malaysian owners, fronted by chairman Tony Fernandes, have long hoped to preside over a Canary Wharf-style redevelopment of the area between Scrubs Lane and Willesden Junction. Cargiant currently own 47 acres of the site in question and the company’s owner Geoff Warren has pressed ahead with his own redevelopment plans for the area since talks with QPR ended abruptly without the basis of a partnership agreement. QPR chairman Tony Fernandes “Some guy wants all the cake. I’m saying ‘Let’s put our heads together and make a bigger cake’.” Tony Fernandes Fernandes has called for those talks to be resurrected, claiming that the Greater London Authority could reject both proposals if the two rival parties do not come together. Fernandes said: “There’s X land. It could be ‘You do this bit, I do this bit.’ There are many ways of skinning a cat. Life’s too short – let’s find a situation where everyone wins. “People in the end will see commonsense. If I take a hard stand and he takes a hard stand, in the end no one will get it – the GLA will do something else. “It’s a matter of sharing out the cake. Some guy wants all the cake. I’m saying ‘Let’s put our heads together and make a bigger cake’.” But Mendes is adamant that Cargiant have no interest in a deal with QPR and will go their own way. Cargiant Cargiant currently own a large part of the land being eyed by QPR Mendes, a lifelong Rangers fan, said: “The position is unchanged. We will not enter into negotiations with QPR regarding our plans to regenerate our land holdings at Old Oak Common. “We are making incredible progress and are very pleased with the feedback from key stakeholders such as the GLA, Transport for London and the local boroughs. “We want to deliver a world class development; safe, with green spaces, schools and the social and leisure facilities that the community will benefit from. “This does not include a stadium. It is not viable to build a stadium in our land and is not going to happen. “Tony Fernandes needs to understand that no means no. There will be no discussions with QPR.” www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/fernandes-told-no-means-no-over-old-oak
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Feb 20, 2015 0:32:50 GMT
Remember the TF Golden Rule, ha4 It would be interesting to know how much land QPR have actually purchased at Old Oak. I don't think the Holding company has bought any land at all. I think they have exclusivity talks on going with current land owners but as far as I know no land has been purchased yet. I imagine they won't unless they're permission is granted. They are still in a position where they could walk away Donnelly stated last year that they had purchased land.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 20, 2015 7:25:59 GMT
Pre-Car Giant "Response?"
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Feb 20, 2015 11:43:22 GMT
Remember the TF Golden Rule, ha4 It would be interesting to know how much land QPR have actually purchased at Old Oak. I don't think the Holding company has bought any land at all. I think they have exclusivity talks on going with current land owners but as far as I know no land has been purchased yet. I imagine they won't unless they're permission is granted. They are still in a position where they could walk away. Has a (land) holding company for the development been set up? Apart from QPR Holdings, nothing has come to the surface. He's still portraying this as if the problems are all coming from Car Giant - just look at the language used. The reality is they own the land we want to build on and they have their own development plans for it. If we want to do a deal with them then the onus is on us to actually do a deal instead of bitching about CG. The problem for QPR is that the owners have created such a financial mess that the only way out is to develop not just a stadium but a shed load of housing to sell and pay off our debts. That's why they need such an incredibly large, and difficult to assemble, piece of land. I'd be very surprised if QPR FC see an actual penny from any development, anywhere, at any time in our future, ever. So it seems that Car Giant rejected QPR's offer for their land after 6 months of behind closed doors negotiations, Uncle Tony and his team then tried to bully them into selling it by using the QPR fanbase, which is not working and now as a last resort after failing to grab the land they're now, asking to share it. Why should Car Giant share it, they own it 100%, it's theirs, why would they give any of it up? The decision is really out of Uncle Tony's hands and all he can do is submit his proposal, have it weighed up against Car Giant's and then the relevant authorities will make the decision. There's no real way of guaging which way it will go, planning decisions are often unpredictable and baffling, it just could have been handled in a much more professional and private manner. If Uncle Tony gets his permission granted, Car Giant will simply sell it at the value that that permission gives it, so they really do have the stronger hand in all of this. Their tactic might be too simply get to that stage where the massive value is realised and then sell, we really don't know. Uncle Tony just wanted to buy it on the cheap and now Car Giant have to prove their asking price, if they ever intend to sell it, which the permission will give them. Prefer the M&S Wharehouse my-self, much closer to Loftus Road, retains our excellent transport links and let's them steal Loftus Road away from the club assets whilst giving us a decent alternative to keep us as tenants. What he said
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 21, 2015 8:33:54 GMT
Couple David McIngtyre Tweets (as part of conversations)
@davidmcintyre76 @nigelqpr68 as long as fans understand its not just about a stadium for QPR & won't be comparable in any way to stadium moves by other clubs
@davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue blaming him one of many excuses people make for TF. Many think Philip Beard was the one leading on Old Oak for QPR. He wasn't
@davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue his background is more managing the logistics of a venue rather than securing the venue in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Feb 21, 2015 17:06:55 GMT
Couple David McIngtyre Tweets (as part of conversations) @davidmcintyre76 @nigelqpr68 as long as fans understand its not just about a stadium for QPR & won't be comparable in any way to stadium moves by other clubs @davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue blaming him one of many excuses people make for TF. Many think Philip Beard was the one leading on Old Oak for QPR. He wasn't @davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue his background is more managing the logistics of a venue rather than securing the venue in the first place. So what? Stating the bl**dy obvious. As usual McIntyre FOS
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 21, 2015 19:17:36 GMT
Couple David McIngtyre Tweets (as part of conversations) @davidmcintyre76 @nigelqpr68 as long as fans understand its not just about a stadium for QPR & won't be comparable in any way to stadium moves by other clubs @davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue blaming him one of many excuses people make for TF. Many think Philip Beard was the one leading on Old Oak for QPR. He wasn't @davidmcintyre76 @bellowingblue his background is more managing the logistics of a venue rather than securing the venue in the first place. So what? Stating the bl**dy obvious. As usual McIntyre FOS I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 21, 2015 19:48:34 GMT
So what? Stating the bl**dy obvious. As usual McIntyre FOS I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards. But it's not their land is it? They own a tiny tiny amount of the whole OOC development yet still are trying to block us from getting any of it
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 21, 2015 19:56:46 GMT
I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards. But it's not their land is it? They own a tiny tiny amount of the whole OOC development yet still are trying to block us from getting any of it What are you talking about? All they've said is they don't think it's viable to include a stadium in any plans, hence that's why theirs don't. Where have they tried to stop us from buying any land they don't own or stop us from building our stadium on land they don't own? Where do you get the idea that they are doing that from? How is 47 acres of a 200+ acre site a tiny tiny amount in any stretch of the imagination?
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 21, 2015 20:21:08 GMT
But it's not their land is it? They own a tiny tiny amount of the whole OOC development yet still are trying to block us from getting any of it What are you talking about? All they've said is they don't think it's viable to include a stadium in any plans, hence that's why theirs don't. Where have they tried to stop us from buying any land they don't own or stop us from building our stadium on land they don't own? Where do you get the idea that they are doing that from? How is 47 acres of a 200+ acre site a tiny tiny amount in any stretch of the imagination? They know that site is the best site for us, both geographically and financially. I agree with TF in that I really can't see how it isn't "viable" to include a stadium in this development. It's not as if we're asking to plonk our brand new stadium slap bang on top of their car giant building is it?
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 21, 2015 20:47:51 GMT
They know that site is the best site for us, both geographically and financially. Geographically I think that the Unigate or M&S Wharehouse sites are far better, both within 5 minutes walking distance from Loftus Road, both big enough for a stadium and both ripe for development. The latter being much better financially for QPR FC as well, the former not so much, but better than Old Oak Common as it will require far less investment in housing and other non-football related building. I agree with TF in that I really can't see how it isn't "viable" to include a stadium in this development. It's not as if we're asking to plonk our brand new stadium slap bang on top of their car giant building is it? OK, I respect that that is what you believe. The Car Giant building will be gone in any redevelopment, but OK. With a massive shortage of housing in London despite a growing population, stating that using land for a stadium that could be housing instead could be argued as non-viable. We already have a stadium and alternative sites for a new one, particularly the two mentioned above. The planning authority have to weigh up the housing need against our need for a bigger stadium taking all that into account and then decide which one is more important. Rights of light, sight lines and road/transport issues also come into it, affecting the viability of a stadium on the site as well. The planning authorities are the ones that will decide this, not Car Giant, they are simply making their case for their plans and likewise we're making ours. They are of course in a much stronger position actually owning the land, hence Uncle Tony's latest backtrack and subsequent plea to 'share the deal'. Now, I'll ask again in reference to your above post: What are you talking about? All they've said is they don't think it's viable to include a stadium in any plans, hence that's why theirs don't. Where have they tried to stop us from buying any land they don't own or stop us from building our stadium on land they don't own? Where do you get the idea that they are doing that from? How is 47 acres of a 200+ acre site a tiny tiny amount in any stretch of the imagination?
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Feb 21, 2015 22:48:39 GMT
So what? Stating the bl**dy obvious. As usual McIntyre FOS I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards. My response was nothing to do with Cargiant (although your right, they are a bunch of money grabbing sods). It was that what McIntyre was quoted as saying was so bl**dy obvious it didn't need to be said again or quoted. Oh yes and in my book 20% is nowhere near owning it all. It is tiny compared to 100%!
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Feb 22, 2015 10:00:20 GMT
I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards. My response was nothing to do with Cargiant (although your right, they are a bunch of money grabbing sods). It was that what McIntyre was quoted as saying was so bl**dy obvious it didn't need to be said again or quoted. Oh yes and in my book 20% is nowhere near owning it all. It is tiny compared to 100%! They (car giant) are not saying you cannot built a stadium in OOC They are saying you can't build a stadium on the 47 acres THEY own. Imagine a stadium was REALLY the "heart beat" of the development, that a stadium needed more than the houses and was the money making machine needed for the area. The GLA/MDC could have forced the issue on car giant, car giant could have then said fine we'll build a stadium and lease it to QPR... Now that would be a weird one for Fernandes & co to consider! And 47 acres is 47 more than Fernandes and co own
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 22, 2015 10:06:01 GMT
In the US at least, one selling point made for a new Stadium is that it will revitalize an area. (Another that it will bring jobs/and those jobs trickle down in other spending, etc.)
But Old Oak is obviously being revitalized with or without QPR. And I guess for the Final Deciders, it will be what will there be if there's not a stadium - and what kind of jobs etc, or revenues, will that alternative offer
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Feb 22, 2015 10:17:08 GMT
In the US at least, one selling point made for a new Stadium is that it will revitalize an area. (Another that it will bring jobs/and those jobs trickle down in other spending, etc.) But Old Oak is obviously being revitalized with or without QPR. And I guess for the Final Deciders, it will be what will there be if there's not a stadium - and what kind of jobs etc, or revenues, will that alternative offer Are you based in the US?
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 22, 2015 10:19:38 GMT
My response was nothing to do with Cargiant (although your right, they are a bunch of money grabbing sods). It was that what McIntyre was quoted as saying was so bl**dy obvious it didn't need to be said again or quoted. Oh yes and in my book 20% is nowhere near owning it all. It is tiny compared to 100%! They (car giant) are not saying you cannot built a stadium in OOC They are saying you can't build a stadium on the 47 acres THEY own. Imagine a stadium was REALLY the "heart beat" of the development, that a stadium needed more than the houses and was the money making machine needed for the area. The GLA/MDC could have forced the issue on car giant, car giant could have then said fine we'll build a stadium and lease it to QPR... Now that would be a weird one for Fernandes & co to consider! And 47 acres is 47 more than Fernandes and co own Actually they are saying we can't build a stadium on OOC.... By them saying it's not "viable" with their plans for the whole development it means, should they win, no stadium on Old Oak Common. I don't think we've approached them and asked to stick our stadium directly on top of where their current site is, we just want it to be somewhere in that 200+ acres which car giant won't agree to
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 22, 2015 10:22:32 GMT
In the US at least, one selling point made for a new Stadium is that it will revitalize an area. (Another that it will bring jobs/and those jobs trickle down in other spending, etc.) But Old Oak is obviously being revitalized with or without QPR. And I guess for the Final Deciders, it will be what will there be if there's not a stadium - and what kind of jobs etc, or revenues, will that alternative offer Are you based in the US? I am now
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Feb 22, 2015 10:32:44 GMT
They (car giant) are not saying you cannot built a stadium in OOC They are saying you can't build a stadium on the 47 acres THEY own. Imagine a stadium was REALLY the "heart beat" of the development, that a stadium needed more than the houses and was the money making machine needed for the area. The GLA/MDC could have forced the issue on car giant, car giant could have then said fine we'll build a stadium and lease it to QPR... Now that would be a weird one for Fernandes & co to consider! And 47 acres is 47 more than Fernandes and co own Actually they are saying we can't build a stadium on OOC.... By them saying it's not "viable" with their plans for the whole development it means, should they win, no stadium on Old Oak Common. I don't think we've approached them and asked to stick our stadium directly on top of where their current site is, we just want it to be somewhere in that 200+ acres which car giant won't agree to Actually, I do not think (correct me if I'm wrong) they are planning on developing the whole 200 acres, they're are only talking about developing the land they own. They are only saying we're going to move and develop the land we own. Thinking about it, it sounds like, they need the houses to fund moving their business and we need the whole area to fund building a stadium for free. It's Fernandes and co who want to do the whole development (200 acres)
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 22, 2015 10:36:08 GMT
I THINK it's a development project for the entire area. (Car Giant with their new associates, etc) Have to refind the release Edit: The release www.itv.com/news/update/2015-02-11/huge-blow-for-qpr-as-deputy-mayor-of-london-backs-car-giant-regeneration-plans/Huge blow for QPR as Deputy Mayor backs Car Giant regeneration plans QPR finally secured three points away from home on Tuesday evening, but their plans to build a new stadium at Old Oak Common have today suffered a fatal blow. Last year, the Premier League club announced plans to create 55,000 new jobs with 24,000 homes and a new 40,000 capacity stadium on land owned by Car Giant, the world's largest car dealership. Car Giant weren't consulted by the club before last year's announcement and made it clear they were planning to regenerate the land themselves. They have been working closely with the Greater London Authority for several months, and London's Deputy Mayor for Planning, Sir Edward Lister, today confirmed: Old Oak Common represents an unprecedented chance to create a truly new piece of London. Car Giant is set to play an enormously important role in the regeneration of the area and we are already working with their development partner London & Regional as they help to deliver the Mayor’s vision for much needed new homes and jobs. Following the Government’s approval of our plans to set up a new Development Corporation, there is now real momentum as we look to maximise this once-in-a-generation opportunity. – London Deputy Mayor for Planning, Sir Edward Lister www.itv.com/news/update/2015-02-11/huge-blow-for-qpr-as-deputy-mayor-of-london-backs-car-giant-regeneration-plans/
Post by Macmoish on Feb 12, 2015 at 2:27am Co Star - Press Release/Statement
Cargiant slams door on QPR stadium moveBy Paul Norman - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 15:00 Cargiant and London & Regional have announced the project team for their major regeneration plans in Old Oak Common in a move likely to effectively end Queens Park Rangers' aspirations to build a new Premier League Stadium on the site. London & Regional Properties replaced Chelsfield as sole development partner to landowner Cargiant in December of last year. Cargiant, the largest private landowner within the Old Oak Common regeneration area in west London, has now appointed its masterplan team for Old Oak Park. The team, fully disclosed below, includes Arup, DP9 and PLP Architecture. Old Oak Park is home to the world’s largest car dealership, Cargiant. The 47 acre site is a centrepiece for the development of Old Oak Common. Cargiant has been proposing a £5bn new town on the site, which at present houses up to 7,000 used cars. The initial plans would include around 9,500 homes and a new high street, two schools – a primary and secondary school - a new dock and a “cultural hub”. Premier League football club QPR has however earmarked the site for a separate scheme comprising a 40,000-seat stadium and 24,000 new homes. For QPR's aspirations to come forward however Cargiant would need to agree to house the hoops on its land or else the site would need to be CPO'd. It is understood that Cargiant's opposition to a stadium on the site remains implacable and the Cargiant consortium is confident that there are no legal grounds for a CPO to make way for QPR's plans given that there is no case for it as a "necessity" as they are proposing a major regeneration scheme. The Greater London Authority's endorsement of the Cargiant consortium also suggests there is little appetite from the mayor for a CPO battle over the site. Tony Mendes, managing director of Cargiant, said: “I’m delighted we have appointed our full masterplanning team and to have such expert partners working with us. As a major landowner and one of the most successful local businesses in the area, we are an important part of the community and best placed to understand what is right for the site. “We are committed to delivering a scheme of exceptional quality, which brings real benefit for local people. We want this to be a part of London we would all be proud to live in and visit. “There is already great momentum behind the project and we look forward to talking to local communities in the coming months so that those who already live and work around Old Oak Common directly help to shape its future.” Cargiant said it supports the Mayor of London’s vision for Old Oak Common and is working collaboratively with the GLA and the emerging Park Royal and Old Oak Mayoral Development Corporation (OPDC), as well as the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, to develop a world class new neighbourhood. The next phase of consultation with the local community will begin in the Spring. Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor for Planning, said: “Old Oak Common represents an unprecedented chance to create a truly new piece of London. Cargiant is set to play an enormously important role in the regeneration of the area and we are already working with their development partner London & Regional as they help to deliver the Mayor’s vision for much needed new homes and jobs. Following the Government’s approval of our plans to set up a new Development Corporation, there is now real momentum as we look to maximise this once-in-a-generation opportunity.” Geoff Springer, Development Director at London & Regional said: “The Cargiant site will be the first to be delivered within the OPDC area, setting the standard for the wider regeneration of the area. It is vital therefore that we create the right linkages across the area, and make best use of the huge investment going into transport infrastructure at Old Oak Common. “Most importantly however, we need to create a place that people and families right across London would chose to live in, with good schools, parks and high quality new homes. We are committed to delivering that vision.” Lee Polisano, Founding Partner of PLP Architecture who will lead the Masterplan team, said: “We are very pleased to be involved in shaping this significant new piece of London. The site represents an opportunity to create much needed new homes, jobs and fantastic public spaces benefiting from new rail connections and access to the Grand Union Canal. Bringing experience, expertise and a creative approach gained from leading and delivering several high profile urban planning and architecture projects we are looking forward to create Old Oak Park in close collaboration with the local boroughs and the OPDC.” The full Cargiant Old Oak Park team is as follows: London & Regional Properties - Development Managers DP9 - Planning Consultants PLP Architecture - Masterplanners Arup - Infrastructure and engineering iCube - Transport West 8 - Landscape Architects Aecom - Energy and sustainability Quod - Socio-Economics Tavernor Consulting - Heritage Waterman Group - Environmental Impact London Communications Agency - Consultation and Communications pnorman@costar.co.uk www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2015/February/Cargiant/Read more: qprreport.proboards.com/thread/40910/cargiant-old-car-giant-sept?page=1#ixzz3ST8ptcXe
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 23, 2015 15:50:41 GMT
I know Sharky, I know. Car Giant are an evil entity because they have their own plans for their own land and Dave Mac is giving direct answers to direct questions. Bastards. My response was nothing to do with Cargiant (although your right, they are a bunch of money grabbing sods). It was that what McIntyre was quoted as saying was so bl**dy obvious it didn't need to be said again or quoted. Oh yes and in my book 20% is nowhere near owning it all. It is tiny compared to 100%! I'm not quite sure why you bring that point about the 20% up at all for two reasons: 1. At no point have I stated nor implied that 20% is close to owning it all. I simply disagree that it is a 'tiny tiny amount'. 2. What you stated I guess Dave Mac is not the only one guilty of that though in his case his answers where relevant to direct questions, whereas in yours it's a question as to why you bothered posting it in the first place as no-one stated the opposite case. Oh, the irony!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 24, 2015 8:44:45 GMT
Flashback to Oct 2014 Tony Fernandes … new Stadium plans “We have spent £5million in putting this stadium plan together and we have a fantastic team. From this development our fans benefit in three ways: a more secure financial footing for the club with a nicer, bigger stadium, the ability for some of them to get jobs in the bigger park area and some of them may even be able to have nicer homes. With the right corporate sponsorship I can also reduce ticket prices. My whole life has been about reducing prices, flight tickets, hotels. “My aim is to make match day [£25-£65] and season tickets [£499-£899] even cheaper. I spent a lot of time in the pubs with fans. It is a lot of money for a family of four. I am under no illusion it is not going to be a walk in the park. It is easier to build an airline than a stadium in central London. My aim is to make it happen.” Read more: qprreport.proboards.com/thread/39932/fernandes-relationship-redknapp-adel-stadium#ixzz3SeNEI7Rx
|
|
qprha4
Gerry Francis
Lower Loft, to R-Block, to S Block, to X Block… Loyal Supporter
Posts: 53
|
Post by qprha4 on Feb 24, 2015 11:20:40 GMT
Flashback to Oct 2014 Tony Fernandes … new Stadium plans “We have spent £5million in putting this stadium plan together and we have a fantastic team. From this development our fans benefit in three ways: a more secure financial footing for the club with a nicer, bigger stadium, the ability for some of them to get jobs in the bigger park area and some of them may even be able to have nicer homes. With the right corporate sponsorship I can also reduce ticket prices. My whole life has been about reducing prices, flight tickets, hotels. “My aim is to make match day [£25-£65] and season tickets [£499-£899] even cheaper. I spent a lot of time in the pubs with fans. It is a lot of money for a family of four. I am under no illusion it is not going to be a walk in the park. It is easier to build an airline than a stadium in central London. My aim is to make it happen.” Read more: qprreport.proboards.com/thread/39932/fernandes-relationship-redknapp-adel-stadium#ixzz3SeNEI7RxI wonder if "Internet Warehouses" were on the cards back then??? Not sure if he would have predicted the 2015 "Internet Warehouse" BOOM
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 19, 2016 8:45:29 GMT
Year Bump
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 19, 2016 8:48:52 GMT
And also from a year ago (as I reposted a couple days ago)
Tony Fernandes a year ago on QPR's "London Call In"
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 19, 2017 8:55:29 GMT
Flashback 2 Years
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 19, 2018 9:32:55 GMT
The old days
|
|