Linford Christie Stadium

[bp]

Excellent Idea

I have to say I agree with this guy. I would hazard a guess he is a Scandinavian Hoop

We take over a loss making site off the council on a peppercorn rent for a given amount of years. 100 would do me.

A condition of which could be some sort of agreement on sharing the spoils if they ever decided to sell up and move on with the specific agreement that they were moving to or building a new ground.

Win win situation. Council offloads loss and we get our new ground.

Mixed housing on our current home.

Mixed housing on new site along with commercial.

Creates plenty of new jobs.

Also build with a view to expanding capacity as and when needed.

I don't know why they are taking so much time to come to an easy solution for everyone.

U Rsssssss..!!

[surreychad]

Hoping someone can answer this.

How does not owning a stadium affect us though? Doesn't it mean that we have no tangible assets to borrow against? We have to ensure we are continually making a profit to survive? Will selling the Kiyan Prince mean we will clear debts or just put money in the owners pockets and we remain with the debt?

[bp]

As Mr Micawber said. "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and six. Result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six. Result misery.”

Translation Income £50 million, spend £49.99 million good. Income £50 million, spend £50.01 million bad.

Not an accountant but I think it doesn't matter how big your asset sheet is if your debt is greater.

Think West Ham.

[rickyqpr]

Jun 16, 2019 18:17:24 GMT surreychad said:

Hoping someone can answer this.

How does not owning a stadium affect us though? Doesn't it mean that we have no tangible assets to borrow against? We have to ensure we are continually making a profit to survive? Will selling the Kiyan Prince mean we will clear debts or just put money in the owners pockets and we remain with the debt?

Accountancy world is never straight forward.
All businesses have to answer to the 'going concern' test. Auditors have to be satisfied that the company (football club) will continue to operate indefinitely, and will not go out of business and liquidate its assets. For this to happen, the company must be able to generate and/or raise enough resources to stay operational. 
It always amazes me that clubs get their accounts signed off each year. Clubs seem to persuade their auditors of the above in quite extreme circumstances.
In the 'commercial' world auditors will sometimes put a qualification on the accounts, flagging up that something has to be done. But the auditors can refuse to sign the accounts if they believe the business is no longer a going concern
Football club going concern is tricky though. Teams have players (assets) that they have paid good money for and that acquisition cost is usually ammortised (written down) over the length of the player's contract. They could have over paid though (Washington) - so to sell early creates an extra loss to recognize - especially if they decide  to release him form his contract early.
But a further complication comes with valuable players who have come through the academy, usually with a book value of zero, and players like Freeman who have appreciated in value since acquisition.
And then we have players who see out their contracts (Bidwell, Lynch etc) who have a substantial intangible value with 12 months of their term remaining but a zero value at the end of their term.
This is why players are often sold with 12 months contract remaining - generating a profit (in some cases) and useful cashflow to fund replacements.
Given the above uncertainties, the auditors normally conclude that the players represent tangible assets who can be sold to meet the debts.
However, sell the players and you have not got a team / club. Pretty difficult. The accounts do not reflect the true value of the squad as revaluing every squad member would be horrendous - and very subjective - so it is not done. 
Similarly, sell the stadium and you have no where to play (of course a club can always ground share to survive)
If that is not complicated enough, then you have the complex corporate accounting structures.
I have given up trying to keep up with the QPR structure, but I believe that QPR Holdings is the top organisation in the QPR hybrid.
There have been many examples of owners trying to separate various elements of the football club into different corporate entities. Derby have managed to sell their ground to their 'owner' to avoid FFP. How that is acceptable I do not know, but Derby no longer own their ground.
So it is possible to run a club and not own the football ground. Our rich owners can underwrite any financial demands the club may have if they wish.
They converted all our debt to equity in a vain attempt to avoid the FFP fine - but that debt had been built up with the security of the ground - but once it was converted to equity they had lost any priority call on the assets of the club.
So a bit long winded, but there is nothing wrong with QPR renting a ground. It obviously comes down to the terms of that loan. It has to be for a substantial period (100 years with built in options for the future) otherwise there is no point in laying out the capital to build the ground. But then the deal would have to be struck with the football club (not some wealthy overseas property speculators) otherwise the club has no security of tenure - and the Council does not meet their objectives.
With regard to Loftus Road, the council seem to believe that the club want a new stadium so that they can make a killing on the old ground. I would imagine that if our owners were not allowed to develop Loftus Road then they would quickly lose interest in LCS. They presumably see this as their best chance of getting some of their investment back - although if they have to pay for LCS ground and the full build cost, it will be another hefty outlay.
That is why they want the land for nothing. But no new stadium and QPR (their investment) will slide down the leagues and probably be unsellable. Then what do they do?
But I cannot recall where the stadium stands in our corporate structure, but I would guess at the QPR Holdings level. So great scope for the sell off to generate funds for the shareholders.
Of course planning would require the cooperation of the council anyway.
In the end it comes down to the wealth and willingness of a club's owners.
I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I think that the club may be forced to leave H&F if they want a new stadium. But they will still need the cooperation on H&F if they are to develop Loftus Road.
The relationship between  H&F Council and our overseas millionaire property speculators is key to what happens next. They have had years to develop a mutual understanding, I do not get anything like a warm feeling right now.
Hope this helps.

[Roller]

Is that part of the scrubs owned by Hammersmith and Fulham or by the MOD? The council certainly are the trustees of The Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust and so need winning over, as do the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs. This is a very complicated plot of land - far more so than Warren Farm!

[rickyqpr]

The article below (from the Mail on Line) qualifies what I tried to capture above.
Clubs are reliant on owners / shareholders funding the continuing losses of the club
When the funds run out or the owner tries to walk away, the club can easily go to the wall.
These are massive losses and someone has to cough up the money.

Championship clubs made combined operating loss of more than £510m last year as staggering cost of Premier League dream is revealed
Soaring wage bills regularly exceeded income for Championship clubs
Many are risking their financial future in attempts to climb up to Premier League
Wolves made the biggest gamble and posted overall losses of £57million
By LAURA LAMBERT FOR MAILONLINE

Championship clubs made combined operating losses of over £510million last year, revealing the staggering price they are willing to pay in pursuit of reaching the Premier League.

With soaring wage bills regularly exceeding income, several clubs put themselves at risk of financial crisis in an attempt to climb out of the punishing second-tier.

Wolves made the biggest gamble on promotion in the 2017/18 season, posting £64.8m of trading losses and overall losses of £57m, but it ultimately paid off, as it did for Fulham, who had the second-highest operating losses, at £59m, and also climbed to the top tier.

Both Wolves and Fulham took huge risks to make the Premier League and were promoted

But Aston Villa - who are once again battling it out in the play-offs this year - failed in their target despite being £54m in the red in terms of revenue and operating expenses.

Villa's accounts stated that the 'prime goal is securing a return to the FA Premier League', and their wage bill of £71million reflected this ambition.

The cumulative operating losses of £512.9m are for the 22 clubs that have published their accounts, representing an average loss of £23.3m.

Sheffield Wednesday were due to publish their company figures by 30 April but have so far failed to do so and have not responded to Sportsmail's request for an explanation.

Bolton Wanderers' missed deadline is less surprising given the club's well-documented financial debacle.

Net operating profit and losses are calculated by taking operating expenses (including wages and transfer fee amortisation) from the club or group company's revenues, and do not take profits in player trading into account.

Comments made in some clubs' accounts painted a worrying picture of the lengths clubs will go to boost their chances of achieving promotion, and the awareness of the financial difficulty regularly experienced in the Championship.

Bristol City's accounts said that 'the principal risk to the company is the availability of finance to fund the continuing losses'.

Meanwhile, Sunderland's accounts said: 'The directors consider the major risk of the business to be a continued absence from the Premier League. Ongoing restructuring of the playing squad aims to reduce this risk.' Despite this, Sunderland - whose annual operating loss of £20.3m contributed to an overall cumulative loss for the club of £249m - were relegated to League One at the end of the 2017/18 season.

Leeds' directors acknowledged: 'The primary risk facing the club and its subsidiaries continues to be the divisional status of the club's first team. This is due to the material effect of divisional status on all revenue streams.'

Aston Villa said their £71million wage bill reflected their ambition to get promoted

These comments reflect the impact of income streams such as the broadcast deal in the Premier League versus the Championship and match-day revenue. Parachute payments for clubs relegated from the Premier League create a disparity between Championship clubs, particularly in comparison to those recently promoted from League One.

However, one of the key determining factors on the financial status of Championship clubs is the cost of wages and transfer fees versus income.

As University of Liverpool football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire has explained, in his blog Price of Football, 'being so close to the Premier League and its riches has meant that clubs often overspend on player cost as they gamble to get promoted'.

Burton were the only club to post a loss of less than £1m, with an operating loss of £292,711 comparing favourably to other clubs. However, despite these modest losses - helped by the spending of £1m on player signings being matched by around £1m on player sales - the club was relegated to League One.

Maguire told Sportsmail: 'Championship losses have nearly doubled over the last five seasons despite FFP being in existence to in theory act as a form of restraint. The figures for 2017/18 exclude Bolton (about to go into administration it would seem) and Sheffield Wednesday.

Operating loss (excluding/before profit on player trading):

Wolves - 64,818,000

Fulham - 59,140,000

Aston Villa - 54,017,000

Derby - 46,662,814

Birmingham - 38,570,167

Cardiff - 34,026,000

Reading - 28,721,317

Bristol City - 23,796,310

QPR - 22,407,000

Leeds - 20,709,259

Nottingham Forest - 20,324,000

Sunderland - 20,273,000

Middlesbrough - 20,186,000

Brentford - 18,483,896

Sheffield United - 10,204,143

Ipswich - 8,391,000

Preston - 7,059,000

Norwich -5,074,000

Hull City - 4,556,341

Millwall - 3,833,000

Barnsley - 1,403,156

Burton - 292,71

Total operating loss for 22 clubs:

-512,948,114

£513m

Average operating loss for 22 clubs:

-23315823.36

£23m

'On an individual basis every club in 2017/18 made an operating loss, with three of them losing more than £1 million a week and others close to it.

'The main driver of losses is poor cost control, with clubs paying out as much as £202 in wages for every £100 of income.' Profit on player sales have not been included in these figures, and clubs use player sales as a legitimate way of recouping losses.

Meanwhile, the accounts for Cardiff, Fulham and Wolves all include payments related to their promotion to the Premier League of between £10m and £20m.

An EFL spokesman said: 'The Championship continues to be one of the most attended and competitive divisions in world football, and in what is an increasingly competitive marketplace, Club owners provide financial support to match their ambition of achieving promotion to the Premier League. Of course, that has to be achieved in a 'fair' manner, which is why the financial regulations in place in the Championship determine the level of losses that can be made, over a period of three seasons.

'This approach to financial regulation is one of the reasons why the Championship is so highly regarded and unpredictable. Our Clubs compete on varying budgets which adds to the drama of the competition with the EFL's biggest Clubs comparable to many in top tier leagues across Europe.

'In the past five years revenues across the EFL have grown by over 50% and, through the sale of its domestic broadcasting rights, clubs are guaranteed financial certainty for the next five year period as a result of a 35% increase in rights fees. In addition, overall revenues for Championship Clubs continue to increase through club generated income, improved central contracts and as a result of EFL negotiated solidarity payments.'

[rickyqpr]

Jun 17, 2019 19:37:26 GMT Roller said:

Is that part of the scrubs owned by Hammersmith and Fulham or by the MOD? The council certainly are the trustees of The Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust and so need winning over, as do the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs. This is a very complicated plot of land - far more so than Warren Farm!

As I understand it Roller the financial management of the site rests with H&F, but they cannot do anything with the plot without getting agreement from Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust, The Friends of Wormwood Scrubs and the MoD who have access rights.
Given how long Warren Farm has taken, this is likely to be a marathon.
I think that events may well be overtaken by HS2 developments.
I gather a lot of clearing has been carried out in preparation for HS2 that will undergo a serious re-examination before Christmas. The cost is spiraling and there is a growing doubt that it will ever be completed.
If it gets canned, there could be other plots available - although not necessarily in H&F.
H&F have 2 other football clubs, I think that there is little enthusiasm to help a third club prosper. Their response that Loftus Road should be developed shows a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to engage.
But we will see.

[bp]

So, in a nutshell, Mr Micawber got it right 😀

[rickyqpr]

www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/qpr-fans-doubt-club-ever-17694378
West London NewsHammersmith
QPR fans doubt their club will ever move to the Linford Christie stadium
It's despite plans to develop the ground for 'professional sports'
ByOwen SheppardLocal Democracy Reporter
14:12, 5 FEB 2020
Proposals to redevelop the Linford Christie athletics centre into a huge multi-purpose stadium have been taken a step further, but whether it could become a new home for Queen’s Park Rangers FC remains unclear.
The idea of building a £40 million stadium earned overwhelming support when a public consultation of 8,800 people was carried out last year by Hammersmith and Fulham Council.
But QPR fans have said they doubt the Championship league club will move to the Linford Christie.
However “major development” of a 30,000-seat arena was supported by 81 per cent of those who took part in the surveys, many of whom were people who use the Linford Christie. 77 per cent said a new stadium on Wormwood Scrubs Park could be used for “professional sports”.
The council recently spent £370,000 on hiring consultants from a firm called In Partnership With Ltd to produce a “business case” – a major piece of research that would set out how the stadium could be developed.
Little more has been decided between the council and the club since last summer, when a local planning officer suggested the QPR could potentially lease the new stadium.
Its long-running search for a new ground goes on, with the club’s management maintaining that Loftus Road could not provide a “sustainable” future.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service spoke to fans from the ‘Optimistic QPR Supporters’ Facebook group, who were sceptical about the club inhabiting a ground it doesn’t fully own.
Tom Faulkner said the club’s current owners “could build the stadium but don’t want that sort of investment”.
Another member of the group, Graham Hodson, said: “I Like the idea of a new stadium, current one isn't fit for purpose in the modern era.
“We would have to own the ground though not lease it, as we could end up wandering around looking for where to play our home games like Coventry City.”
Peter Chadburn called the proposal of QPR leasing their new ground “nonsense”.
“Maybe a site could be found in Greenford or Hillingdon,” he said. “Developing around the Bush I feel is unlikely.”
Seán Bielecki commented: "Do QPR own the Loftus Road site? If so, a straight swap seems fair. QPR get a new ground on the Lindford Christie site, the council get prime building land. Everyone's a winner."
At a town hall meeting in July 2019, following the results of the consultation, Mr Cowan said he would “bend over backwards” to help QPR, but suggested it was unlikely the club could buy the site from the council.

[Ashdown_Ranger]

Bit of a non-story by MyLondon.

They could generate just as 'credible' an article by reading threads on QPRReport and forming a 'view'...

[rickyqpr]

Tend to agree - Clickbait.
However, the real story behind this is one of worrying inactivity.
Depending on how much research the journalist carried out, there is no current quote from the council nor the club.
Pretty sloppy journalism if he did not ask for one.
But I sense that the Council do not know what to do, but do need a solution. They do not want QPR to own the stadium and develop Loftus Road.
The silence from QPR's owners about LCS or anywhere else - or even work commencing at Southall maybe a statement in itself.
Perhaps the club is being prepared for sale. The absence of any new players or expenditure on any large capital projects, together with a noticeable decline in communication does not bode well.
It has been 7 months since the last update. Then the message was that LCS was the last chance to stay in H&F. But we have not been linked with any sites outside of H&F during that time.
Is it because we have stopped looking? Are we really not in discussions with H&F anymore?
Simple statement from the club would not go amiss would it?

[surreychad]

The current leadership seem to have a completely different view on news, TF loved to say a lot and often left himself open to ridicule or made promises that no one could deliver, the current powers that be only release info when there is something to say.

[rickyqpr]

Where huge West London arena that could become new QPR home is set to be built
The council says a large-scale redevelopment, in partnership with a private investor, is the only way to improve the ageing Linford Christie Stadium
QPR's management have said the club needs a new ground to replace Loftus Road in West London (Photo by Justin Setterfield/Getty Images)
Wormwood Scrubs is on its way to getting a huge new “professional sports” or “indoor" arena to replace the Linford Christie Stadium.
Imperial College London, Queen’s Park Rangers FC and a number of private developers have shown interest in investing in redeveloping the Linford Christie.
QPR’s management have long been touting the idea that Wormwood could become the club’s replacement for Loftus Road.
There are also suggestions that income could be raised from allowing music festivals to take place on the Scrubs in 2021. A dance music festival promoter, Slammin' Events, is said to have shown interest.
This was discussed on Tuesday, October 6, during a meeting of Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust Committee.
Fears HS2 changes will make Wormwood Scrubs more like a Disneyland
Fulham, Chelsea and Queen’s Park Rangers football games will be policed from reopened Hammersmith Police Station
The council is the only trustee of the Charitable Trust, while the committee makes decisions on how the Scrubs and its facilities are managed, with guidance from council officers.
The committee comprises three councillors, a member of the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs, and Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen, chairman of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA).
Wormwood Scrubs Park. It's one of West London's most cherished open spaces
At the October 6 meeting, the committee decided that the council should kick off a procurement process to find a private developer who will submit proposals to redevelop the Linford Christie Stadium.
Last year the council ran a public consultation which resulted in 80 per cent of 8,782 respondents saying a "large scale" arena or stadium, with 30,000 seats, should be built.
A report presented to the committee on Tuesday said the council is looking at three main options that developers could base their proposals on:
To build “enhanced sports facilities” to replace the Linford Christie “through a deal with Imperial College London”. The university would primarily build the facilities for its students, but also allow Kensington Dragons FC, Thames Valley Harriers and the public to hire them
Build a “major indoor arena” more suited to gigs and concerts
Build a “professional sports stadium”
The report said the latter two options would “generate higher levels of revenue and greater returns for the Trust”. And that the redevelopment itself would be funded by selling a “long lease” of the site to the chosen developer.
This is an important factor because the council “does not have an appetite to invest major capital or continued revenue to support facilities at the [Linford Christie] Stadium site that do not generate a direct economic return,” the report said.
The Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust Committee held the online meeting on October 6, and it was live streamed on YouTube (Image: Hammersmith and Fulham Council)
At Tuesday’s meeting, David Burns, the council’s assistant director of growth, said the procurement process could conclude, with development options ready to be decided on, “by the end of the financial year”, i.e. March 2021.
This would be followed by a public consultation and planning application process, as well as obtaining permission to override the Metropolitan Open Land protections on the Scrubs.
Meanwhile, the committee heard that festivals promoter Slammin' Events, has approached the council with the idea of putting on a music festival for “up to 10,000” as a “test event” in 2021.
Stephen Hollingsworth, the council's chief officer for public realm, said: “Slammin' Events are keen to engage with us and see festivals and events on the Scrubs...
“What they are saying is they would like to do a test event next year for about 10,000 people, aged 25 to 35. But of course that needs a lot of consultation and lots of mitigation strategies in place… we should invite them along to hear what they’re proposing.”
Committee chair, councillor Alexandra Sanderson, said: “I’m happy with that.
“We’re well aware we need to be mindful of what type of events we let happen on the Scrubs. But I’m very open to the concept of raising funds through events.”
www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/huge-west-london-arena-could-19067462

[Ashdown_Ranger]

Difficult to know what to take from that article...


1:

At the October 6 meeting, the committee decided that the council should kick off a procurement process to find a private developer who will submit proposals to redevelop the Linford Christie Stadium.

2:

Imperial College London, Queen’s Park Rangers FC and a number of private developers have shown interest in investing in redeveloping the Linford Christie.

Add to that the Charitable Trust's often reported historical negativity towards QPR, well, I'm not getting too excited/hopeful at our prospects for securing the site any time soon.

Milton Keynes Park Rangers anyone?

[Ashdown_Ranger]

75: If there is no prospect of larger crowds do we need to move.

I think there is more to our proposed move than the ability to cope with bigger crowds. After all, the likely introduction of 'safe standing' at grounds will mean a (possibly significant) increase in Loftus Road's capacity.

A new ground may very well bring with it the potential to earn from the site more than from 23 home games a year - and the LR site will have a one-off sale value (presumably the LC site will be owned by the council/Trust).

Fans might even get LEG ROOM!

[bowranger]

Oct 9, 2020 13:00:38 GMT @75choices said:

Oct 9, 2020 12:30:01 GMT Ashdown_Ranger said:

I think there is more to our proposed move than the ability to cope with bigger crowds. After all, the likely introduction of 'safe standing' at grounds will mean a (possibly significant) increase in Loftus Road's capacity.

A new ground may very well bring with it the potential to earn from the site more than from 23 home games a year - and the LR site will have a one-off sale value (presumably the LC site will be owned by the council/Trust).

Fans might even get LEG ROOM!

Agree completely which is why I have been one of the strongest supporters of making a move. I think I asked the wrong question in "do we need to move" At the end of the day I still say yes we do but the point I did not make very clearly (if at all) is more a question of when do we need to move. Given the length of time it takes for planning permissions etc I think we should plough ahead now and maybe we will get there in 5 or 10 years time!

I guess I am just in an uncertain mood of not knowing what the world and football and many other things will look like in a couple of years after Covid. I suspect much will be greatly changed and talk of "getting back to normal" is wishful thinking in many aspects. I  expect many things have or will change forever - and hopefully will change for the better.

Yeah that uncertain mood about everything throws a huge spanner in the works of how I think about it and whatever the "new normal" (know that gets chucked around a lot) actually looks like.

I guess pending some huge changes to the way football exists a lot of the reasons behind why QPR want to move will persist. I romantically don't like it but the logic is really stark in that we can't play live matches at our current ground and make a profit. Hoos has been really blunt on that.

The expansion options are pretty much exhausted beyond the potential bump in capacity from safe standing. Which would help if we successfully attract more people in and convert them to long term match going fans (something I think is a real positive for atmosphere, particularly in terms of providing an affordable and more engaging experience for fans in the 18-30 bracket who are confronted with the choice of an expensive, sitting, often over-stewarded experience vs just watching games on Sky and drinking at home).

But money-wise, the main issue is not being able to capitalise on hospitality and non-match day revenue. That's how clubs at this level tend to make a profit - having events, parties, conferences, concerts or whatever on non-match days. That's what we can't benefit from properly at our current home.

My assumption with any thing we push for on LC is a mixed offering that leans on the "keep our club in the borough" as a community concern (especially considering the amazing work the trust do) plus offers non-footballing revenue opportunities for non-match day revenue...

...but with not having any idea of how our world looks and operates with the pandemic going on, it all feels very weird to be thinking about a 'normal' future.

[rickyqpr]

Old Oak Common Station go ahead
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/construction-old-oak-common-hs2-grant-shapps-london-b942103.html


Construction of HS2’s Old Oak Common station to be given the go-ahead

It will be the UK’s largest railway station built in a single stage.

A computer-generated image of Old Oak Common station

A computer-generated image of Old Oak Common station

By Neil Lancefield


Construction of HS2’s west London station will be given the go-ahead by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps on Wednesday.



The Cabinet minister will visit the site at Old Oak Common which will support more than 2,300 jobs.



It will be the UK’s largest railway station built in a single stage.



The start of permanent works... is a significant step for phase one of HS2



Mr Shapps said: “The start of permanent works at the largest train station ever built in the UK in one go, Old Oak Common, marks yet more progress in delivering HS2 the high-speed, high-capacity and low-carbon railway that will form the backbone of our national transport network.



The launch of permanent works at the 32-acre site will involve a 1.1-mile-long wall being built underground as part of the installation of six HS2 platforms.


HS2 Ltd said the station will offer “unrivalled connectivity”, with six HS2 platforms for services to the Midlands and the North, four Crossrail platforms, and four mainline rail platforms served by trains to and from the South West and South Wales.



The station will feature a roof covering the area of more than three football pitches.



HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Thurston said: “The start of permanent works at Old Oak Common station, our first station under construction, is a significant step for phase one of HS2, as we deliver world-leading engineering to create what will arguably be one of the best-connected railway super hubs in the UK.”



The Financial Times reported on Monday that HS2’s costs have jumped by another £1.7 billion in the past year as the coronavirus pandemic adds further pressure to the project.



The scheme’s £44.6 billion budget for phase one between London and Birmingham includes £5.6 billion of contingency funds.



A Department for Transport spokesman said final assessments of the impact of the pandemic “have not been made”

[rickyqpr]

I parked next to LCS last week and was struck by how the dilapidated arena had suffered even more since I saw it last over 18 months ago.
Obviously Covid has delayed decision making but when I looked back, I discovered that the last real update was over two years ago following the consultation. www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2019/04/help-us-decide-future-linford-christie-stadium
The business case was published September 2020 - democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s114609/Appendix%201%20-%20Outline%20Business%20Case.pdf
The council seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, and i cannot help but think that if they were even considering a deal with QPR, then there would have been some positive noise by now.
The local opposition is likely to be as hostile as it was from Ealing residents for the training ground.
But I think the only way it works for our owners is if they can sell Loftus road for development - over 400 dwellings has been muted before.
But that development would be subject to the provision of community facilities at the alternative / new site for a stadium.
That could mean that if we leave the borough we cannot build on our existing ground - hence the fixation with remaining in the borough rather than say moving to Park Royal in Ealing.
From H&F perspective, they already have two bigger grounds in the borough, so why do they need a third?
It is hardly as if the majority of support for QPR is from locals.
So, hard to see a way out unless something changes - but in the meantime, Linford Christie remains a problem for H&F.

[rickyqpr]

www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/qpr-look-elsewhere-for-new-ground-as-linford-christie-stadium-hopes-fade
LCS looking dead in the water.
Last shout to the council.
No new stadium for at least 10 years......

[rickyqpr]

www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/club-statement-hammersmith-fulham-council-291021/
Yet another development.....

[rickyqpr]

The discussion about a new stadium at the Fan's Forum set me thinking.
The response in a nutshell from Hoos / our owners, was that even though the school want to move out, the space could probably not be utilised in a cost benefit way.
The line has been for some time that Loftus Road cannot be developed.
The cost of alternative land cannot be justified, when housing generates such a greater return.
There is little or no dialogue with H&F who seem disinterested in anything QPR may want to do with LCS.
We need a new ground to generate non matchday revenue (like the £1m that Burnley generate). Query, how do they do that and how many other clubs generate such income - is it worth a whole new ground?
Brentford's new stadium does not hold many more than Loftus Road and they are making a fist of it in the Prem.
The lure of the Prem, is all about the TV revenues.
So where does that leave us?
It strikes me that whereas Heston is all part of the strategy to develop and sell talent, perhaps the new stadium is far less appealing to our owners now.
Perhaps the model we aspire to now is more: Watford, Brantford, Norwich and Burnley.
Hire a decent manager, sneak into the play-offs, eventually win the play-offs, settle for yo-yo status, banking the TV money wherever possible.
The stadium and gate money becoming less and less important over time.
If opportunity for a stadium arises, then analyse how incremental revenue can be generated e.g. Sports complex, hotel. housing. supermarket etc.
For that to happen, there would have to be a substantial move out of town, or a long wait for current HS2 land.
If that is the current thinking or strategy, then there is no way it can be articulated in the above way, but it makes the stadium a much lower priority. They cannot say to H&F that they have lost interest.
The big flaw of course is that the club may never win the play-offs, and in the meantime, the owners are having to pump cash in every month.
We are totally trapped for now by FFP, making it hard to buy promotion, and we are hardly an attractive selling proposition.
It means that we remain vulnerable to our owners losing interest, ambition capped by the stadium and the regulations, with the local council likely to block any development that would see our overseas owners making money out of a development.
So, it is not surprising that Hoos got testy with the inevitable question at the Forum, or that we really gave it a go last season to gain promotion.
But I can't see the club leaving Loftus Road in the next 10 years - minimum.

[rickyqpr]

QPR move faces fresh hurdle as plans to redevelop Linford Christie Stadium revealed
The stadium may even get a new outdoor swimming pool

QPR has been looking to leave the Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium for over 10 years (Image: Historic England Archive/Heritage Images via Getty Images)

QPR's plans to move from Loftus Road may have been dealt a blow as a local group has revealed it wants to redevelop the Linford Christie Stadium. The Friends of Wormwood Scrubs have put forward plans to redevelop the stadium with a new lido, athletics track and changing facilities.

QPR has long expressed interest in moving to the Linford Christie Stadium. But, if the community group is given permission to redevelop the site, it is possible the club's move could be set back.

The club has been looking to leave Loftus Road for around a decade. It has previously squabbled with Hammersmith and Fulham Council after the club's majority shareholder Ruben Gnanalingam said the borough was "not easy to deal with".

QPR has previously wanted to move to the Linford Christie Stadium (Image: Julia Gregory)
The council previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service it was a huge supporter of QPR and “willing to bend over backwards to help them as we have done with Fulham FC and Chelsea FC.”

A consultation held by the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs claimed many parts of the Linford Christie Stadium are in a state of 'dire disrepair' and that over 1,200 people said they were interested in an outdoor swimming pool at the venue.

A report suggesting the stadium is redeveloped said: "The facilities within the Linford Christie Stadium are in need of significant upgrading, to meet 21st-century sporting requirements, including compliance with National Athletics League standards, and to be fitting for Thames Valley Harriers who are currently National Athletic Champions.

"The track is several years past the date on which it should have been replaced, and the covered track is too short to be useful. The viewing stand is very 'tired', with no usable storage facilities in the space beneath it, and the immediately adjacent toilet facilities have not been usable for some years."   www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/qpr-move-faces-fresh-hurdle-25743678

[surreychad]

My company surveyed the stadium around 6 years ago and its was knackered back then.

[Macmoish]

Ironically, I bumped yesterday that it was 9 years since QPR "announced" we were moving to a new stadium!
The QPR announcement and various news articles qprreport.proboards.com/post/341547/thread


QPR OFFICIAL SITE

Club unveils plans for new 40,000 seater stadium in Old Oak
THE CLUB is delighted to today unveil plans for a new 40,000 seater stadium as part of a major regeneration project in the Old Oak area in West London.

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.’

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.

The plan is to develop a 40,000 capacity football stadium at the heart of the regeneration area, and for this to be the catalyst that will eventually 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 homes.

The scheme has the provisional title of New Queens Park.

R’s Chairman, Tony Fernandes, told http://www.qpr.co.uk: “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.”

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

[rickyqpr]

www.shepherdsbushw12.com/#!pages/shepherdsbushw12:info:ldrslinfordchristiestadium002

londonnewsonline.co.uk/qpr-could-be-forced-to-find-new-home-outside-borough/
Friends of Worwood Scrubs are not interested in a QPR stadium.
Not dead, but end of life care.
The owners must be well aware of this.
Perhaps they think the training ground is enough for now.
We are further away from moving than ever IMHO

[kerrins]

The Linford Christie Stadium project for the R's has always been a non starter.

Firstly the local residents there will not tolerate our move and will block it through the courts. Also the Council is not fully on board to say the least. In addition of course there are environment groups to contend with re the location.

Sadly the Old Oak Common ship has long since sailed. This was the ideal site. No residents to protest back then. The Council gave full support and the proposed new stadium would have been less than 2 miles from Loftus Rd.

Car Giant would not co-operate so that put the kibosh on that!

[blatantfowl]

Either accept the QPR will always be a small club or move out of the borough.

[surreychad]

always though twickenham offered opportunities, you have 2 or 3 rugby clubs all in close proximity all of which are desperate for money, a new stadium with a ground share with one of them would suit all parties.