| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:20 - Sep 4 with 2288 views | jonno |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:12 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
Problem is, drop out of the Premier League, and those 8,000 newbies who saw your Premier League tickets advertised on the side of a bus, aren't so keen on watching you play Millwall at home - see Craven Cottage attendance figures this season. |
There will be a reason why their attendances have dropped - Konk will no doubt explain!  |  | |  |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:22 - Sep 4 with 2270 views | LadbrokeGrover |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:02 - Sep 4 by daveB |
I don't think the new training ground will happen, Fernandes has spoken a lot recently about it not being essential anymore |
It effing well is essential. This really pisses me off. How are we going to attract the better players to come and play for us when our 'office' is a sh1thole? It's where all the work is done in order to be a successful team/club.
So we fly or drive our potential signing over to us and show him round our lovely new stadium. He's really impressed and the terms are right for both parties. Then, we take him to our rented joke of a training ground where the facility's are no where near good enough and he has second thoughts about joining us. It's like showing a really talented potential employee your boardroom in Mayfair where all the big decisions are made once a week in lovely inspiring surroundings only for him to find out the day to day work is run out of a porta cabin under the Westway. A crass way of getting my point across but you see what I mean. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:27 - Sep 4 with 2265 views | TacticalR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:02 - Sep 4 by DylanP |
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12040/9455549/premier-league-qpr-take-ne
Not much new on that link.
Its funny how people get stuck on one detail and won't let go:
--"40K is much too big, we need 30K!! Grrrr" -- They are just announcing the initial consultations. There are no plans. When there are plans (in about a year) then its worth commenting/worrying on the details of the plan.
-- "What about the training ground. That is much more important. Grrrr!" The training ground and the ground are two completely different projects. They are being conducted on different tracks. They thought they had a plan for the Training Ground, but a bunch of NIMBYs put up so many road blocks that it wasn't worth pursuing. They tried very hard, but it a project that should have been done in months was dragging on for years. Eventually, they had to choose between waiting to invest in a holistic solution (meanwhile leaving the lads training in substandard facilities) or investing resources in the existing facilities to bring them up to a more decent standard (still not where we'd want to be) immediately. They are clearly not going to plough loads of money into a location we are about to leave. But in the end, the waiting was affecting the lads, so they decided to stop waiting and make do with the location we have. If you wanna be mad, be mad at the NIMBYs for ruining a perfectly good plan. Either way, t has nothing to do with the stadium plans.
All these latest plans tell us is that things are moving forward. That is a good sign but not worth reading too much into. There are so many more steps in the process and so many more potential roadblocks and pitfalls that we might as well just wait and see.
And here is one I love: "See, I told you they are only in it for the money. Grrrrr!" Are you kidding me? The money? They haven't even broken ground and you begrudge them the possibility that if this wild dream comes to fruition they will make some money off it. Apart from the obvious fact that they have already sunk tens of millions into the club (could be as much as hundreds of millions) without any guarantee of that coming back, This plan is in its infancy. It will take billions to complete and lots of cash-flow. These sorts of plans sometimes make lots of money, but sometimes make developers bankrupt. lets wait and see. And if it makes them rich, well that is OK coz you have to speculate to accumulate, right?!? |
The question is this...if they can't achieve the small things how can they achieve the big things? |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:30 - Sep 4 with 2233 views | Jamie |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:22 - Sep 4 by LadbrokeGrover |
It effing well is essential. This really pisses me off. How are we going to attract the better players to come and play for us when our 'office' is a sh1thole? It's where all the work is done in order to be a successful team/club.
So we fly or drive our potential signing over to us and show him round our lovely new stadium. He's really impressed and the terms are right for both parties. Then, we take him to our rented joke of a training ground where the facility's are no where near good enough and he has second thoughts about joining us. It's like showing a really talented potential employee your boardroom in Mayfair where all the big decisions are made once a week in lovely inspiring surroundings only for him to find out the day to day work is run out of a porta cabin under the Westway. A crass way of getting my point across but you see what I mean. |
We will attract them the same way we have to date. ££££££. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:40 - Sep 4 with 2220 views | LadbrokeGrover |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:30 - Sep 4 by Jamie |
We will attract them the same way we have to date. ££££££. |
And what about our youth system? We're all desperate to see what was once a very important and proud part of Queens Park Rangers F.C. Producing very talented football players. And from what I understand, at the moment they don't even train in the same place as the first team! Not even being in the same place so they can be inspired by the first team is unforgivable if you ask me. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:51 - Sep 4 with 2144 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:40 - Sep 4 by LadbrokeGrover |
And what about our youth system? We're all desperate to see what was once a very important and proud part of Queens Park Rangers F.C. Producing very talented football players. And from what I understand, at the moment they don't even train in the same place as the first team! Not even being in the same place so they can be inspired by the first team is unforgivable if you ask me. |
That's the real crux of the training ground dilemma, I think. If we don't build a new training ground we'll never have an academy.
Still, I'm not ruling out the possibility that Fernandes' comments about the training ground are political and are a negotiating ploy. It's possible, I suppose. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:00 - Sep 4 with 2112 views | RangersAreBack |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:02 - Sep 4 by daveB |
I don't think the new training ground will happen, Fernandes has spoken a lot recently about it not being essential anymore |
This is why I believe the Old Oak Development is not just about rehousing QPR but making money for those involved. IMHO decent training facilities and first class academy would be more beneficial to the football club (this is where players go to work every day) but it is not a money spinner for the owners. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:01 - Sep 4 with 2112 views | londonscottish |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 08:35 - Sep 4 by WokingR |
You have to hope that serious discussions and contact with Car Giant are ongoing because otherwise this sense of just ploughing on regardless and steamrollering them is likely to put their backs up even further and lead to more than the shot across the bows we have already had from them. |
What, like this you mean?
http://www.london24.com/sport/football/clubs/qpr/cargiant_boss_rules_out_a_new_q |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:25 - Sep 4 with 2060 views | CroydonCaptJack |
Blimey that is fascinating.
He has said a lot there and obviously feels he is being manipulated. Can't say I blame him on the basis of what he says. The fact that he is a QPR fan and he feels he has had to say all that doesn't reflect well on us to be honest. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:29 - Sep 4 with 2040 views | essextaxiboy |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:51 - Sep 4 by BrianMcCarthy |
That's the real crux of the training ground dilemma, I think. If we don't build a new training ground we'll never have an academy.
Still, I'm not ruling out the possibility that Fernandes' comments about the training ground are political and are a negotiating ploy. It's possible, I suppose. |
I thought that when he made those comments , say you may pull out and just keep the process ticking along . |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:32 - Sep 4 with 2031 views | TheBlob |
There was an episode of Minder where a friend of Arfur was getting severe agg because he owned a car lot which other "interested parties" wanted to develop.   |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:44 - Sep 4 with 1993 views | wombat |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:32 - Sep 4 by TheBlob |
There was an episode of Minder where a friend of Arfur was getting severe agg because he owned a car lot which other "interested parties" wanted to develop. |
said from day one this site was a non starter due to HS2 and who already owns the site , we should have bought the BBC site on wood lane its simple as that , new hotel westfield across the road plenty of tubes nearby not rocket science and apart from the cost of buying the TV centre minmul lead in tim to build a ground with little hassle doing so
think BBC was sold in the end for 300 million how much do you reckon the car giant land will cost us ? my guess close to 200 million |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:51 - Sep 4 with 1967 views | Northernr |
This is the bit I don't really get about the club's approach. You don't own the land, and you're not going to bully a very profitable (unlike QPR) and very well run (unlike QPR) business out of it on the cheap just because you're a football club.
This would be a bit like some celebrity sticking planning permission in and telling the press all about the mansion he wants to build on top of your house.
All very well mate, sounds great, but I own my house so you're probably going to have to pay me a fair price for it before all of that. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:51 - Sep 4 with 1967 views | Nov77 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:44 - Sep 4 by wombat |
said from day one this site was a non starter due to HS2 and who already owns the site , we should have bought the BBC site on wood lane its simple as that , new hotel westfield across the road plenty of tubes nearby not rocket science and apart from the cost of buying the TV centre minmul lead in tim to build a ground with little hassle doing so
think BBC was sold in the end for 300 million how much do you reckon the car giant land will cost us ? my guess close to 200 million |
From the official website for this development.
Q: Why Old Oak?
QPR has been in the area for over 100 years and even though it has moved several times during that period, it has always been in this part of West London. We want to remain here and close to our fans, and Old Oak is the only land nearby big enough to build a new stadium. Old Oak is the next natural move for the club, bringing it closer to its original home of Queen’s Park.
What they're really saying is that it is the "only land nearby big enough" to build 40,000 homes.
A stadium could easily have been built on the bbc site or Unigate. It would have been more palatable to fans too as their journey would not have changed.
Can't help feeling this one's going the way of warren farm. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:04 - Sep 4 with 1935 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:12 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
Problem is, drop out of the Premier League, and those 8,000 newbies who saw your Premier League tickets advertised on the side of a bus, aren't so keen on watching you play Millwall at home - see Craven Cottage attendance figures this season. |
So on that basis, possible relegation, we never do anything to move the club forward?
That's a very negative argument Clive. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:07 - Sep 4 with 1894 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:22 - Sep 4 by LadbrokeGrover |
It effing well is essential. This really pisses me off. How are we going to attract the better players to come and play for us when our 'office' is a sh1thole? It's where all the work is done in order to be a successful team/club.
So we fly or drive our potential signing over to us and show him round our lovely new stadium. He's really impressed and the terms are right for both parties. Then, we take him to our rented joke of a training ground where the facility's are no where near good enough and he has second thoughts about joining us. It's like showing a really talented potential employee your boardroom in Mayfair where all the big decisions are made once a week in lovely inspiring surroundings only for him to find out the day to day work is run out of a porta cabin under the Westway. A crass way of getting my point across but you see what I mean. |
I'm not sure its as bad as you all make out.
GH said it was much improved on when Chelsea used to have it.
There is only ONE thing, sadly , new signings are worried about, and its not the state of the bacon butties at the training ground! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:08 - Sep 4 with 1892 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:30 - Sep 4 by Jamie |
We will attract them the same way we have to date. ££££££. |
Exactly - beat me to it Jamie. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:16 - Sep 4 with 1876 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:04 - Sep 4 by PinnerPaul |
So on that basis, possible relegation, we never do anything to move the club forward?
That's a very negative argument Clive. |
No no that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that building a colossal stadium, far bigger than you need, on the basis that you can fill it with lots of away fans, cheap ticket deals, tourists and neutrals is not sustainable in the hard times when they come.
A 25,000 seater stadium would be more than adequate for QPR at the moment. I can only remember the Leeds match really, when we were getting the trophy, where there was a substantial amount of people locked out. And I don't buy this "we had 37,000 people at Wembley" nonsense either, because the world and his dog went to that. Hull and Swansea are great examples - didn't go mad, built what they needed, now filling them pretty much every week and maybe looking to add another tier.
You have to grow and build a support base over a considerable length of time, with success on the pitch, and hard work in the community.
Do it the way Fulham did it, which was the example given higher up the thread, and the minute the going gets tough they all fck off again.
Build a ground the way Middlesbrough did it, and the place is so empty and silent on matchdays that it's not a decent place to go and watch football, so nobody does, even when the team is decent.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:18 - Sep 4 with 1866 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:51 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
This is the bit I don't really get about the club's approach. You don't own the land, and you're not going to bully a very profitable (unlike QPR) and very well run (unlike QPR) business out of it on the cheap just because you're a football club.
This would be a bit like some celebrity sticking planning permission in and telling the press all about the mansion he wants to build on top of your house.
All very well mate, sounds great, but I own my house so you're probably going to have to pay me a fair price for it before all of that. |
I agree with that Clive.
I read from his comments, especially as he is a "QPR fan" and has local connections, that he WAS open to negotiation but it had to be a bit better than just offering slightly less derisory amounts every few months, with no dialogue in between!
I'm sure with a bit of goodwill on both sides, ie Car Giant are offered a suitable alternative site with of course proper financial compensation that a solution can be found. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:22 - Sep 4 with 1851 views | TheBlob |
Maybe a lot depends on how much the local council want the club to succeed - indeed be a part of a new development.If they were to throw their weight in defence of the project then any hard nosing/delaying tactics by Car Giant might be met with a compulsory purchase order. | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:24 - Sep 4 with 1849 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:16 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
No no that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that building a colossal stadium, far bigger than you need, on the basis that you can fill it with lots of away fans, cheap ticket deals, tourists and neutrals is not sustainable in the hard times when they come.
A 25,000 seater stadium would be more than adequate for QPR at the moment. I can only remember the Leeds match really, when we were getting the trophy, where there was a substantial amount of people locked out. And I don't buy this "we had 37,000 people at Wembley" nonsense either, because the world and his dog went to that. Hull and Swansea are great examples - didn't go mad, built what they needed, now filling them pretty much every week and maybe looking to add another tier.
You have to grow and build a support base over a considerable length of time, with success on the pitch, and hard work in the community.
Do it the way Fulham did it, which was the example given higher up the thread, and the minute the going gets tough they all fck off again.
Build a ground the way Middlesbrough did it, and the place is so empty and silent on matchdays that it's not a decent place to go and watch football, so nobody does, even when the team is decent.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Fair enough Clive, but pretty difficult and more expensive, I would have thought to upgrade, if we need to rather than just bite the bullet and go for 35 - 40K from the start.
Of course, as as been mentioned, to make the stadium commercially viable, it needs to be of a certain size to work, even if we don't fill it every week, other events will and TF has already said that more corporate facilities would enable him to keep the ticket prices realistic - take that with a pinch of salt at this early stage of course, but it does make sense.
Good thread by the way people, plenty of rational debate, not like some threads containing a certain Moroccan's name for example! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:26 - Sep 4 with 1848 views | simmo |
If it doesnt happen, I won't be shedding any tears. Money is made from TV an sponsorships now anyway, the ticket sales are negligible in the scheme of things. Apart from anything else I don't want to leave LR. I don't care about the fckin leg room, I love our little shit ground. Moving us to a huge stadium to help fund a residential money maker so the 15k that go week in week out can look at thousands of empty seats the next time we fck things up and have to play with the other 'FL72 schleps' is not what made me love this club so much.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against a new stadium per se, if it's done right and kept realistic, but the main reason they want a new ground is to make more money from corporates and by hosting fckin 1Direction gigs and Coldplay concerts. Fck that. I want a football ground, built for a football team with the sole purpose of providing a venue to watch sports. That's what Loftus Road is at the moment so unless you want to give me a slightly bigger version of that, in close proximity, you and every other person worried about the revenue stream can fck all the way off. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:27 - Sep 4 with 1842 views | robith |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:51 - Sep 4 by Nov77 |
From the official website for this development.
Q: Why Old Oak?
QPR has been in the area for over 100 years and even though it has moved several times during that period, it has always been in this part of West London. We want to remain here and close to our fans, and Old Oak is the only land nearby big enough to build a new stadium. Old Oak is the next natural move for the club, bringing it closer to its original home of Queen’s Park.
What they're really saying is that it is the "only land nearby big enough" to build 40,000 homes.
A stadium could easily have been built on the bbc site or Unigate. It would have been more palatable to fans too as their journey would not have changed.
Can't help feeling this one's going the way of warren farm. |
Loads of Television centre is listed, so there's no way you could a stadium on the site |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:29 - Sep 4 with 1841 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:22 - Sep 4 by TheBlob |
Maybe a lot depends on how much the local council want the club to succeed - indeed be a part of a new development.If they were to throw their weight in defence of the project then any hard nosing/delaying tactics by Car Giant might be met with a compulsory purchase order. |
I think you'd be hard pushed to get a CPO out on a profitable local employer so that a loss making football club can have a shiny new stadium. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:32 - Sep 4 with 1830 views | hovehoop |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:51 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
This is the bit I don't really get about the club's approach. You don't own the land, and you're not going to bully a very profitable (unlike QPR) and very well run (unlike QPR) business out of it on the cheap just because you're a football club.
This would be a bit like some celebrity sticking planning permission in and telling the press all about the mansion he wants to build on top of your house.
All very well mate, sounds great, but I own my house so you're probably going to have to pay me a fair price for it before all of that. |
Largely depends if Car Giant are motivated sellers or not. Sound bites are usual in the circumstances with the buyers aim driving down the price and the sellers aim the opposite. That said, Car Giant deserve what the land is worth plus compensation for relocating.
Though if the local authority is involved and land acquisition is a joint R's/Council venture then perhaps rules of compulsory purchase (CP) come into play. In which case the Council could enforce a sale. I don't know this system though know of cases where land/properties have been purchased by way of the system. It wouldn't surprise me if CP factored.
There would be a lot of local authority collaboration in any event. Schemes this scale often require developers to gift public amenities (schools, doctors surgeries etc.) to the authority as a condition of granting planning permission. It's called a Section 106 agreement and the principle has existed a long time. Same thing is happening at Greenwich Peninsula right now.
On the issue of crowd attendance it could take generations to build the fan base. Wembley aside, I'd relate to maybe 18k committed R's supporters from which say 8 to 10k will find season ticket money regardless. Have no idea where other supporters will come from though the onus is on the Club to produce a quality product at reasonable prices. Cut the prices and more people will attend. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
