| cargiant say no way! 22:56 - Mar 10 with 30291 views | connell10 |
Email put out by cargiant to rangers fans who went to the fans meeting, saying that they will never let rangers build a new stadium on their land. Maybe anyone who received said email can post it up here. |  |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |  |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:02 - Mar 10 with 9228 views | FredManRave |
Dear QPR Supporter,
Old Oak Park — Cargiant’s land at Old Oak Common
We are writing to all those people who attended QPR’s Supporters Consultation Committee and Fan Sites meeting on 2 March 2016 as we feel you should all be informed as to the true state of affairs with regard to the possibility of delivering a stadium on the Cargiant land which we own.
As you are probably aware, the Cargiant land — a 46 acre site which we call Old Oak Park — lies at the heart of the Old Oak Common regeneration area, covering a significant proportion of the land to the north of the Grand Union Canal. It is the largest privately owned site in the area, the first to be delivered, is central to unlocking the transformation of the wider area and will set the standard for the further regeneration which will follow.
The land has been identified by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) to deliver much needed new homes and jobs as part of a thriving new neighbourhood based around what will become the best connected transport interchange in London, with HS2, Crossrail, London Underground and Overground. This is set out in the Mayor’s Vision (2013), the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and in the Draft Local Plan (2016) currently being consulted on by the OPDC.
We have therefore been developing a masterplan over the last 18 months that responds to this by creating up to 7,000 new homes, supporting up to 8,000 jobs and putting programmes in place to ensure local people can access these opportunities. There will be a new London Overground Station and fourteen new bridges and underpasses to connect into the communities around us, ensuring the new parks, canal-side environment and community facilities are accessible for everyone to enjoy.
At the heart of our plans is a new cultural quarter that will attract millions of visitors a year, create hundreds of new jobs and boost the local economy with activity throughout the day and the evening, as well as establishing a strong identity for Old Oak Park as a whole. Anchoring this cultural quarter will be a world-famous institution and visitor attraction of national significance that will also deliver an outreach programme with schools and the local community. Some of you may have visited our public exhibitions in January and February and our full consultation materials are still available to view at www.oldoakpark.co.uk.
We were therefore extremely annoyed to note the statements made by QPR at the meeting on the 2 March 2016 that a new QPR stadium on Cargiant land is “the only viable option on the table” and that a “stadium could sit side by side with the Cargiant development”.
We feel such misleading and inaccurate statements should be corrected so that you are aware of the actual position.
I can confirm that neither Cargiant, nor our development partner London & Regional Properties, are in any discussions with QPR and that we will not enter into any such discussions or agreements with the Club in any way, shape or form. In short, we will never agree to a stadium on any part of our land under any circumstances and we have made that position crystal clear to the Club, the GLA and the OPDC on numerous occasions.
The reason is quite simple. A stadium would be completely the wrong use for our land. Our site is critical to the success of Old Oak Common and a stadium requires an enormous amount of land which would hugely reduce its ability to deliver new homes, jobs and other uses such as a cultural quarter — and all for a use which lies largely dormant for the vast majority of the year. We are committed to bringing forward a masterplan that is far more sensitively designed, that has incredible parks and open spaces, and that has far greater benefits for local residents and surrounding communities than is possible with a stadium. Our approach is also backed by policy and the latest policy framework issued for consultation by the OPDC does not include a stadium on our site.
Given that we outright own our land, the only way a stadium could be delivered on any part of the Cargiant site is if the public sector takes us to court to enforce a 'Compulsory Purchase Order' (CPO) on us in order to force a stadium use. Quite apart from the fact that this would cost enormous sums, given that we are willingly relocating the Cargiant business and redeveloping our land in keeping with the regeneration objectives for new homes and jobs, there is no legal basis for a CPO. Sir Edward Lister, Chair of the OPDC has already confirmed that this is the case and even QPR’s own planning consultant confirmed to you on 2 March that such an outcome was ‘unlikely’.
We also note from the minutes of the 2 March meeting that the Club not only requires land for a stadium but also requires additional land in order to deliver “residential and commercial development to subsidise the stadium”. The overriding need at Old Oak Common is for homes and jobs, with money generated required to contribute towards the massive cost of putting in place the critical rail and other infrastructure, as well for the delivery of affordable homes. The area has not been designated a regeneration area in order to fund the move of a football club.
The statements of QPR implying that a stadium could be built on Cargiant land are at best confusing and at worse misleading. Under no circumstances will we consent to a stadium on our land. Any further work by the Club in this direction is futile.
As you are all aware, Cargiant were sponsors of QPR for a number of years and many of our 800 staff still support the club and hope for success. We will not however, financially jeopardise the relocation of our own business - which has been based here for over 30 years - and, most importantly, we will also not allow this vital new piece of London to be developed without the maximum benefit to existing local residents and to London as a whole.
We do wish the Club well in being able to deliver a new stadium but it is now time that they prioritised other site options that they may be able to actually deliver.
I do hope this is helpful and should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 046 3379 or you can email us at oldoakpark@londoncommunications.co.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Mendes Geoff Springer
Managing Director Development Director
Cargiant London & Regional Properties |  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:04 - Mar 10 with 9216 views | connell10 |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:02 - Mar 10 by FredManRave |
Dear QPR Supporter,
Old Oak Park — Cargiant’s land at Old Oak Common
We are writing to all those people who attended QPR’s Supporters Consultation Committee and Fan Sites meeting on 2 March 2016 as we feel you should all be informed as to the true state of affairs with regard to the possibility of delivering a stadium on the Cargiant land which we own.
As you are probably aware, the Cargiant land — a 46 acre site which we call Old Oak Park — lies at the heart of the Old Oak Common regeneration area, covering a significant proportion of the land to the north of the Grand Union Canal. It is the largest privately owned site in the area, the first to be delivered, is central to unlocking the transformation of the wider area and will set the standard for the further regeneration which will follow.
The land has been identified by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) to deliver much needed new homes and jobs as part of a thriving new neighbourhood based around what will become the best connected transport interchange in London, with HS2, Crossrail, London Underground and Overground. This is set out in the Mayor’s Vision (2013), the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and in the Draft Local Plan (2016) currently being consulted on by the OPDC.
We have therefore been developing a masterplan over the last 18 months that responds to this by creating up to 7,000 new homes, supporting up to 8,000 jobs and putting programmes in place to ensure local people can access these opportunities. There will be a new London Overground Station and fourteen new bridges and underpasses to connect into the communities around us, ensuring the new parks, canal-side environment and community facilities are accessible for everyone to enjoy.
At the heart of our plans is a new cultural quarter that will attract millions of visitors a year, create hundreds of new jobs and boost the local economy with activity throughout the day and the evening, as well as establishing a strong identity for Old Oak Park as a whole. Anchoring this cultural quarter will be a world-famous institution and visitor attraction of national significance that will also deliver an outreach programme with schools and the local community. Some of you may have visited our public exhibitions in January and February and our full consultation materials are still available to view at www.oldoakpark.co.uk.
We were therefore extremely annoyed to note the statements made by QPR at the meeting on the 2 March 2016 that a new QPR stadium on Cargiant land is “the only viable option on the table” and that a “stadium could sit side by side with the Cargiant development”.
We feel such misleading and inaccurate statements should be corrected so that you are aware of the actual position.
I can confirm that neither Cargiant, nor our development partner London & Regional Properties, are in any discussions with QPR and that we will not enter into any such discussions or agreements with the Club in any way, shape or form. In short, we will never agree to a stadium on any part of our land under any circumstances and we have made that position crystal clear to the Club, the GLA and the OPDC on numerous occasions.
The reason is quite simple. A stadium would be completely the wrong use for our land. Our site is critical to the success of Old Oak Common and a stadium requires an enormous amount of land which would hugely reduce its ability to deliver new homes, jobs and other uses such as a cultural quarter — and all for a use which lies largely dormant for the vast majority of the year. We are committed to bringing forward a masterplan that is far more sensitively designed, that has incredible parks and open spaces, and that has far greater benefits for local residents and surrounding communities than is possible with a stadium. Our approach is also backed by policy and the latest policy framework issued for consultation by the OPDC does not include a stadium on our site.
Given that we outright own our land, the only way a stadium could be delivered on any part of the Cargiant site is if the public sector takes us to court to enforce a 'Compulsory Purchase Order' (CPO) on us in order to force a stadium use. Quite apart from the fact that this would cost enormous sums, given that we are willingly relocating the Cargiant business and redeveloping our land in keeping with the regeneration objectives for new homes and jobs, there is no legal basis for a CPO. Sir Edward Lister, Chair of the OPDC has already confirmed that this is the case and even QPR’s own planning consultant confirmed to you on 2 March that such an outcome was ‘unlikely’.
We also note from the minutes of the 2 March meeting that the Club not only requires land for a stadium but also requires additional land in order to deliver “residential and commercial development to subsidise the stadium”. The overriding need at Old Oak Common is for homes and jobs, with money generated required to contribute towards the massive cost of putting in place the critical rail and other infrastructure, as well for the delivery of affordable homes. The area has not been designated a regeneration area in order to fund the move of a football club.
The statements of QPR implying that a stadium could be built on Cargiant land are at best confusing and at worse misleading. Under no circumstances will we consent to a stadium on our land. Any further work by the Club in this direction is futile.
As you are all aware, Cargiant were sponsors of QPR for a number of years and many of our 800 staff still support the club and hope for success. We will not however, financially jeopardise the relocation of our own business - which has been based here for over 30 years - and, most importantly, we will also not allow this vital new piece of London to be developed without the maximum benefit to existing local residents and to London as a whole.
We do wish the Club well in being able to deliver a new stadium but it is now time that they prioritised other site options that they may be able to actually deliver.
I do hope this is helpful and should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 046 3379 or you can email us at oldoakpark@londoncommunications.co.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Mendes Geoff Springer
Managing Director Development Director
Cargiant London & Regional Properties |
Thanks mate, as they say pick the bones outta that! | |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:10 - Mar 10 with 9182 views | londonscottish |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:02 - Mar 10 by FredManRave |
Dear QPR Supporter,
Old Oak Park — Cargiant’s land at Old Oak Common
We are writing to all those people who attended QPR’s Supporters Consultation Committee and Fan Sites meeting on 2 March 2016 as we feel you should all be informed as to the true state of affairs with regard to the possibility of delivering a stadium on the Cargiant land which we own.
As you are probably aware, the Cargiant land — a 46 acre site which we call Old Oak Park — lies at the heart of the Old Oak Common regeneration area, covering a significant proportion of the land to the north of the Grand Union Canal. It is the largest privately owned site in the area, the first to be delivered, is central to unlocking the transformation of the wider area and will set the standard for the further regeneration which will follow.
The land has been identified by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) to deliver much needed new homes and jobs as part of a thriving new neighbourhood based around what will become the best connected transport interchange in London, with HS2, Crossrail, London Underground and Overground. This is set out in the Mayor’s Vision (2013), the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and in the Draft Local Plan (2016) currently being consulted on by the OPDC.
We have therefore been developing a masterplan over the last 18 months that responds to this by creating up to 7,000 new homes, supporting up to 8,000 jobs and putting programmes in place to ensure local people can access these opportunities. There will be a new London Overground Station and fourteen new bridges and underpasses to connect into the communities around us, ensuring the new parks, canal-side environment and community facilities are accessible for everyone to enjoy.
At the heart of our plans is a new cultural quarter that will attract millions of visitors a year, create hundreds of new jobs and boost the local economy with activity throughout the day and the evening, as well as establishing a strong identity for Old Oak Park as a whole. Anchoring this cultural quarter will be a world-famous institution and visitor attraction of national significance that will also deliver an outreach programme with schools and the local community. Some of you may have visited our public exhibitions in January and February and our full consultation materials are still available to view at www.oldoakpark.co.uk.
We were therefore extremely annoyed to note the statements made by QPR at the meeting on the 2 March 2016 that a new QPR stadium on Cargiant land is “the only viable option on the table” and that a “stadium could sit side by side with the Cargiant development”.
We feel such misleading and inaccurate statements should be corrected so that you are aware of the actual position.
I can confirm that neither Cargiant, nor our development partner London & Regional Properties, are in any discussions with QPR and that we will not enter into any such discussions or agreements with the Club in any way, shape or form. In short, we will never agree to a stadium on any part of our land under any circumstances and we have made that position crystal clear to the Club, the GLA and the OPDC on numerous occasions.
The reason is quite simple. A stadium would be completely the wrong use for our land. Our site is critical to the success of Old Oak Common and a stadium requires an enormous amount of land which would hugely reduce its ability to deliver new homes, jobs and other uses such as a cultural quarter — and all for a use which lies largely dormant for the vast majority of the year. We are committed to bringing forward a masterplan that is far more sensitively designed, that has incredible parks and open spaces, and that has far greater benefits for local residents and surrounding communities than is possible with a stadium. Our approach is also backed by policy and the latest policy framework issued for consultation by the OPDC does not include a stadium on our site.
Given that we outright own our land, the only way a stadium could be delivered on any part of the Cargiant site is if the public sector takes us to court to enforce a 'Compulsory Purchase Order' (CPO) on us in order to force a stadium use. Quite apart from the fact that this would cost enormous sums, given that we are willingly relocating the Cargiant business and redeveloping our land in keeping with the regeneration objectives for new homes and jobs, there is no legal basis for a CPO. Sir Edward Lister, Chair of the OPDC has already confirmed that this is the case and even QPR’s own planning consultant confirmed to you on 2 March that such an outcome was ‘unlikely’.
We also note from the minutes of the 2 March meeting that the Club not only requires land for a stadium but also requires additional land in order to deliver “residential and commercial development to subsidise the stadium”. The overriding need at Old Oak Common is for homes and jobs, with money generated required to contribute towards the massive cost of putting in place the critical rail and other infrastructure, as well for the delivery of affordable homes. The area has not been designated a regeneration area in order to fund the move of a football club.
The statements of QPR implying that a stadium could be built on Cargiant land are at best confusing and at worse misleading. Under no circumstances will we consent to a stadium on our land. Any further work by the Club in this direction is futile.
As you are all aware, Cargiant were sponsors of QPR for a number of years and many of our 800 staff still support the club and hope for success. We will not however, financially jeopardise the relocation of our own business - which has been based here for over 30 years - and, most importantly, we will also not allow this vital new piece of London to be developed without the maximum benefit to existing local residents and to London as a whole.
We do wish the Club well in being able to deliver a new stadium but it is now time that they prioritised other site options that they may be able to actually deliver.
I do hope this is helpful and should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 046 3379 or you can email us at oldoakpark@londoncommunications.co.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Mendes Geoff Springer
Managing Director Development Director
Cargiant London & Regional Properties |
So that's a no, then? |  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:12 - Mar 10 with 9176 views | QPR_John |
How did Car Giant find the email addresses of all those that attended? |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:13 - Mar 10 with 9162 views | Toast_R |
I'm sure one or two backhanders will settle proceedings. |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:18 - Mar 10 with 9140 views | johncharles |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:10 - Mar 10 by londonscottish |
So that's a no, then? |
A somewhat elaborate and desperate sounding NO.
A compromise WILL be reached eventually so this sort of North Korean press release is just bluster. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:21 - Mar 10 with 9129 views | daveB |
Cargiant emailing individual QPR fans seems out of order to me, they seem far too keen to have a dig at QPR at every opportunity. If they are so confident as they say they are about securing the development they wouldn't need to do this as the opinions of QPR fans in the local area would not matter |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:35 - Mar 10 with 9068 views | karl |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:21 - Mar 10 by daveB |
Cargiant emailing individual QPR fans seems out of order to me, they seem far too keen to have a dig at QPR at every opportunity. If they are so confident as they say they are about securing the development they wouldn't need to do this as the opinions of QPR fans in the local area would not matter |
Definitely looks like a 'divide and conquer' tactic, very strange behaviour.
Whenever anyone defends their position with more than 20 words questions should be asked. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| cargiant say no way! on 23:40 - Mar 10 with 9046 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Personally, because I'm a backwards sentimental type, this is great news.
The AirAsia West London Stadium can fvck off and I'll continue to dodge the pigeon shite and leaky roof for a while longer until we inevitably get moved to the M4 near Slough. |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:41 - Mar 10 with 9043 views | daveB |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:35 - Mar 10 by karl |
Definitely looks like a 'divide and conquer' tactic, very strange behaviour.
Whenever anyone defends their position with more than 20 words questions should be asked. |
been going on for a while, they released a statement a few years back saying similar to the fans websites and I think it was on the podcast as well plus they are all over the local press rubbishing the QPR plan at every opportunity. | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:44 - Mar 10 with 9027 views | QPRDave |
Well that's that then.
I can't believe the people running this club would just go ahead and claim people's land, and claim deals are in place if it's not true.
But Cargiant have the whiphand here, so you have to believe them |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:55 - Mar 10 with 9005 views | HollowayRanger |
will be best result of the season
for me
as being selfish Ive no wish to move |  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:57 - Mar 10 with 8999 views | daveB |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:44 - Mar 10 by QPRDave |
Well that's that then.
I can't believe the people running this club would just go ahead and claim people's land, and claim deals are in place if it's not true.
But Cargiant have the whiphand here, so you have to believe them |
Thats not how it works and if it was then they wouldn't need to keep making these kind of statements to QPR fans to try and get us on their side | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:59 - Mar 10 with 8997 views | karl |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:44 - Mar 10 by QPRDave |
Well that's that then.
I can't believe the people running this club would just go ahead and claim people's land, and claim deals are in place if it's not true.
But Cargiant have the whiphand here, so you have to believe them |
You can't though mate, anyone in a legal position like this laying everything out in public has not got the strong position they are claiming. I don't know the truth but this doesn't sit right, I'm not in a position to know anything but i've been involved in minor legal disputes and they're playing all their cards quite aggressively to individuals and it looks too desperate.
There's no doubt QPR haven't dealt with the situation very well up till fairly recently on balance though. | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:59 - Mar 10 with 8998 views | PunteR |
CarGiant own the land but do they have the investors to develop on it? Surely they wont be financing any building work. Isnt it a bit out there hands? I don't really understand why they are so dead against us doing anything there. Seems an odd thing to do ,to email QPR supporters. Strange behavior. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:05 - Mar 11 with 8974 views | QPRDave |
Ok cheers dave & Karl
I'll watch this space | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:16 - Mar 11 with 8953 views | karl |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:05 - Mar 11 by QPRDave |
Ok cheers dave & Karl
I'll watch this space |
That's what i'm going to do, there's obviously a lot of mileage in this yet. PuntR and his funding issue is probably the right area, they probably need the people backing QPR's money but there is more than likely %'s being haggled over | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:38 - Mar 11 with 8911 views | isawqpratwcity |
It is inevitable that some developer will make the club an offer too generous to refuse for Loftus Road. Our home base is very small, even by Championship standards. Unless there is some plan to go through the difficult process of finding a stadium site within a rare large West London redevelopment project we will end up in Slough or similar.
I would prefer to wait for the Club to announce that OOC is not a viable option than take Car Giant's statement at face value. To me, OOC is the clearly the best option to preserve QPR as a local institution. [Post edited 11 Mar 2016 0:39]
|  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:39 - Mar 11 with 8904 views | essextaxiboy |
Surely with modern design and materials we could develop LR.
I just read that the Old Trafford pitch is 7 metres lower than street level .Ipswichs stand extends out over the street outside. The shops at The Springbok could be developed for the box office and admin even the changing rooms and have a tunnel in the corner. We must be able to go higher at each end and some clever thinking in the Ellerslie to get a few more in .
Sweat the asset we have, a bit at a time |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:55 - Mar 11 with 8878 views | kensalriser |
Ah the old let's redevelop Loftus Rd chestnut is never far away. Complete non-starter. There just isn't enough space. You can't put a quart in a pint pot. It could only happen if the White City estate were to be redeveloped. |  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:56 - Mar 11 with 8878 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| cargiant say no way! on 00:39 - Mar 11 by essextaxiboy |
Surely with modern design and materials we could develop LR.
I just read that the Old Trafford pitch is 7 metres lower than street level .Ipswichs stand extends out over the street outside. The shops at The Springbok could be developed for the box office and admin even the changing rooms and have a tunnel in the corner. We must be able to go higher at each end and some clever thinking in the Ellerslie to get a few more in .
Sweat the asset we have, a bit at a time |
I never want us to leave LR and I don't automatically accept Old Oak as a fait accompli, but if you sink a pith 7m you have to allow for a viewing angle from each stand to see the edges if the pitch. This means at a 1:1 viewing slope i.e. 45 degrees, therefore you need to find 7m on every side. If we had that kind of space we wouldn't have to move.
Simply put, sinking a pitch helps when planning restricts the maximum height of a stadium for planning purposes. It doesn't reduce the space required.
Ted will know a lot more about this. |  |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 06:00 - Mar 11 with 8762 views | WatfordR |
| cargiant say no way! on 23:21 - Mar 10 by daveB |
Cargiant emailing individual QPR fans seems out of order to me, they seem far too keen to have a dig at QPR at every opportunity. If they are so confident as they say they are about securing the development they wouldn't need to do this as the opinions of QPR fans in the local area would not matter |
Yep, this kind of statement in my opinion screams a position of weakness rather than the strength it tries to convey.
It does strike me as though some would happily believe every word of every anti-QPR sentiment without question whilst analysing every word of every sentence of any statement made by anyone connected with the club to support an anti-QPR argument.
Funny old world eh? |  | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 07:29 - Mar 11 with 8614 views | WareRanger |
I was chatting to a friend of mine recently who works for a City based firm of surveyors. They have been asked to tender for all the surveying work at Old Oak Common. Not sure by who unfortunately. However, smack in the middle of the plans they have been provided is a large football stadium.
If a new stadium has got all the right political support then it will definitely happen.
Oh, and I won't be buying any cars from Car Giant ever again... | | | |
| cargiant say no way! on 07:33 - Mar 11 with 8600 views | isawqpratwcity |
| cargiant say no way! on 06:00 - Mar 11 by WatfordR |
Yep, this kind of statement in my opinion screams a position of weakness rather than the strength it tries to convey.
It does strike me as though some would happily believe every word of every anti-QPR sentiment without question whilst analysing every word of every sentence of any statement made by anyone connected with the club to support an anti-QPR argument.
Funny old world eh? |
"...made by anyone connected with the club to support an anti-QPR argument."
I think you mean "...a pro-QPR argument". Feel free to edit. | |
| |
| cargiant say no way! on 07:46 - Mar 11 with 8560 views | NW5Hoop |
Pretty amazed that people are sneering at Car Giant.
1. It's their land. They've made their position plain repeatedly. They have asked the club to stop talking about developing their land.
2. The club just ignore them, and carry on prattling on about the new stadium being planned for someone else's land.
3. After months and months of this, Car Giant put out a long statement detailing the exact situation, reaffirming their absolutely consistent position and detailing the reasoning behind it, and people think they're the ones behaving badly?
Come on, with both the stadium and the training ground, QPR have consistently operated a policy of announcing first, then seeing if it's possible later. It hasn't worked with the training ground; it doesn't look like it's going to work with the stadium.
To be honest, if these people announced they were going to build a garden shed, the first thing I'd do would be to check whose garden they planned to put it up in. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
