| Staying in the Borough 21:10 - Nov 14 with 20291 views | NW10Hoop |
We make a big deal about any new ground being as close to Loftus Road as possible. But if the only realistic option in the borough and more specifically W12 is Scrubs, should we start getting our head around moving further? Would opening the search out to the boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Hillingdon be a complete no no? Just thinking there’d be more choice, possibly cheaper land, and if you show you’re prepared to move, maybe Hammersmith and Fulham will re-evaluate our standing given all the great community work QPR are responsible for.
I have long been priced out of raising a family in Shepherds Bush, I guess many of you have too. It’s a far different place than it was 20 years ago. Would it be terrible if the club looked west in the way loads people who grew up in Shepherds Bush already have?
Just wondering really, and interested to know everyone’s thoughts
Edit - I’d obviously want the team to remain in what I see as QPR territory, but being half a mile away from current HQ wouldn’t be the only selling point to me. For example If it were 3 miles up the road but near good transport links loads of nice boozers and we could build a stadium exactly to our liking - that would probably feel like a better option than the Linford Christie site to me. [Post edited 14 Nov 2018 21:24]
|  | | |  |
| Staying in the Borough on 12:01 - Nov 22 with 3301 views | colinallcars |
| Staying in the Borough on 11:39 - Nov 22 by BrianMcCarthy |
All fair points.
I would also point out - as a general comment - that these words from the council are possibly over-strong as part of a negotiating tool. |
I thought that as well. I hadn't realised that the Rangers were trying to get the land free. We can't expect the council to go along with that. Cynics among our fans have long thought our owners are just sticking with it to get a slice of Old Oak or, as the council thinks, playing property developer at LR. I'm uneasy about the whole affair which is a shame as I would have thought LCS would have been ideal for us. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 12:23 - Nov 22 with 3233 views | CroydonCaptJack |
It does have an air of the Car Giant land about it.
Hopefully the QPR statement was designed to provoke a reaction and has done just that but if it wasn't then it would appear we have not learned anything from Old Oak. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 12:32 - Nov 22 with 3189 views | philc |
The Council are right not to give the land away, regardless of the perceived benefits of QPR's presence, their first concern is maximising the benefit of the disposal for the residents of the Borough. Also owning rather than leasing the land means that the benefits will come to the Club (or owners if different) and would hopefully avoid some of the hurdles we had to over come with the training ground.
The valuation will prove difficult, as I assume the site has restrictions as to use and if the athletics track and facilities are being rebuilt I would expect a contribution for that. Also in previous discussions one of the conditions from the Hospital Governors was that a new tube station be built, the cost of that should be factored in and possibly the school being rebuilt.
I am surprised that the Clubs community work is being questioned it is one area in which the Club should be rightly proud and have been recognised.
Having fans representation on the Board is a good idea, I wouldn't want shares, have you seen the amount we are loosing? and if the current policy continues of converting loans to cover the losses into shares the holding would soon be so diluted to be worthless.
One final point, issuing bonds to pay for the building of the training is not getting the fans to pay. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 13:28 - Nov 22 with 3081 views | timcocking |
So, just reading that bit by the local council saying 'they love having QPR in the borough and are big fans of the club, but cannot just give a hundred million quids worth of land to QPRs wealthy owners.'
The council were suggesting the Rangers' owners cede a share of the club to the fans in lieu of some payment, to prove their long-term commitment to the fans and the local area. So instead of giving the land to the board, they'd be giving a share of it to QPR itself.
Unless i'm missing something, that's a fair point to begin with and sounds great for us lot, doesn't it? |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 14:16 - Nov 22 with 3005 views | Boston |
The majority of the fans are not residents of the Borough. Why would the council find it more appealing for their participation at board level? | |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 15:30 - Nov 22 with 2905 views | kensalriser |
I'd like to see any new stadium linked to some sort of community trust to ensure that it remains connected to QPR and can't be asset stripped in the future.
LR must be worth more than the LCS site, so it would easily finance the cost of the new site and some. |  |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 15:34 - Nov 22 with 2898 views | hoopdog |
| Staying in the Borough on 15:30 - Nov 22 by kensalriser |
I'd like to see any new stadium linked to some sort of community trust to ensure that it remains connected to QPR and can't be asset stripped in the future.
LR must be worth more than the LCS site, so it would easily finance the cost of the new site and some. |
It would have to tied to something like that before L R is sold | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Staying in the Borough on 16:10 - Nov 22 with 2848 views | philc |
I'm sure that HQ has greater potential for redevelopment and a greater value than LC that can only be developed for sporting activities
I like the idea of the creation of a QPR Trust to have a share in the club / new ground if it ensures that it can not be sold for profit unless it is for the benefit of the club. | | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 16:45 - Nov 22 with 2782 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Staying in the Borough on 16:10 - Nov 22 by philc |
I'm sure that HQ has greater potential for redevelopment and a greater value than LC that can only be developed for sporting activities
I like the idea of the creation of a QPR Trust to have a share in the club / new ground if it ensures that it can not be sold for profit unless it is for the benefit of the club. |
Yes that’s a good point about the LCS site only being used as a sporting venue. Out of interest does anybody know if there are any other realistic bidders for it? |  |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 17:21 - Nov 22 with 2732 views | gobbles |
Why is everyone so keen to move to bloody Ruislip? Everyone I have known who has moved to Ruislip quickly found part of them died inside. I don't want that happening to my football club. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 08:23 - Nov 24 with 2454 views | Hoopsie |
What did Hammersmith and Fulham mean by saying helping QPR to regenerate lofts road? Surely they didn't mean to redevelop LR to another use, I believe they mean the stadium.
Don't want to flog a dead horse, and I have posted in other threads regarding upgrading LR, but have we really exhausted all avenues in upgrading LR? It's seems the club has said the current stadium is not viable for growth, have any of you seen the report, including detail plans of a stadium upgrade report?
Would H&F willing to back QPR in staying at LR? Would they change planning controls on the site to ensure the planning guidelines are relaxed regarding density, building height, sight lines, noise control, environmental impact, building setback etc, and help QPR in land acquisition of surrounding sites like ellersie road and school end?
Did the club report include the possibilities of the above?
Needless to say I am the for lofus road upgrading camp, moving elsewhere will be costly and may take forever. |  |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 09:28 - Nov 24 with 2392 views | DannyPaddox |
| Staying in the Borough on 17:21 - Nov 22 by gobbles |
Why is everyone so keen to move to bloody Ruislip? Everyone I have known who has moved to Ruislip quickly found part of them died inside. I don't want that happening to my football club. |
DEATH LIDO ... very Hammer Horror. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 09:40 - Nov 24 with 2370 views | Juzzie |
| Staying in the Borough on 08:23 - Nov 24 by Hoopsie |
What did Hammersmith and Fulham mean by saying helping QPR to regenerate lofts road? Surely they didn't mean to redevelop LR to another use, I believe they mean the stadium.
Don't want to flog a dead horse, and I have posted in other threads regarding upgrading LR, but have we really exhausted all avenues in upgrading LR? It's seems the club has said the current stadium is not viable for growth, have any of you seen the report, including detail plans of a stadium upgrade report?
Would H&F willing to back QPR in staying at LR? Would they change planning controls on the site to ensure the planning guidelines are relaxed regarding density, building height, sight lines, noise control, environmental impact, building setback etc, and help QPR in land acquisition of surrounding sites like ellersie road and school end?
Did the club report include the possibilities of the above?
Needless to say I am the for lofus road upgrading camp, moving elsewhere will be costly and may take forever. |
I went on a stadium tour a few years ago and it opened my eyes that we do need to move.
On the whole, people generally talk about capacity and facilities for the attending spectator which, of course, is a primary consideration.
However, there are so many other requirements and its clear LR falls way behind and simply cannot be upgraded. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 12:19 - Nov 24 with 2279 views | themodfather |
shall i stay or should i go now???
why dont we get the mayor to con londoners to redevelop the linford christie arena, get them to pay for it all and we then give £25m to rent it?? i mean not like its not been done already! | | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:06 - Nov 24 with 2200 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Staying in the Borough on 17:39 - Nov 15 by hubble |
Ruislip isn't cool. Ealing isn't cool. Acton isn't cool. The Bush is still cool. It still has an edge, it's in London, it's not a f*cking suburb FFS. I don't want us to be a suburban bloody club. We're West London, central, edgy, cool, crazy, amazing demographic, metropolitan.... We've got to stay in this area. It's more about the area and the soul than the badge for me. If the club built a ground somewhere up the A40 that would be it for me. Over. |
I understand the desire to stay in West London but Shepherds Bush is not cool. It's a hovel, especially White City. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:09 - Nov 24 with 2196 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Staying in the Borough on 17:21 - Nov 22 by gobbles |
Why is everyone so keen to move to bloody Ruislip? Everyone I have known who has moved to Ruislip quickly found part of them died inside. I don't want that happening to my football club. |
By moving there the club would resurrect their souls. | | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:15 - Nov 24 with 2184 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:50 - Nov 21 by davman |
I like that response, particularly the call for the owners to give some ownership / equity to the fans or the community. Our VERY VERY rich owners cannot expect to play on the heart strings to get a cut price deal and we should not berate the council for trying to get investment in li e with the value of their land.
It may be our last chance to stay in the Borough, but if it is too expensive, then we may have to look further afield whether the fans like it or not. |
I couldn't give a monkeys about the LBH&F. With 3 clubs in the same borough, they'll never show allegiance to QPR. BY contrast, LBE have stuck with us through the Warren Farm saga. | | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:30 - Nov 24 with 2158 views | colinallcars |
| Staying in the Borough on 18:06 - Nov 24 by Benny_the_Ball |
I understand the desire to stay in West London but Shepherds Bush is not cool. It's a hovel, especially White City. |
Sadly I have to agree about the Bush. It's better on match days because of the influx of our fans. During the week, it's hellish. | | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 20:22 - Nov 24 with 2110 views | CamberleyR |
| Staying in the Borough on 08:23 - Nov 24 by Hoopsie |
What did Hammersmith and Fulham mean by saying helping QPR to regenerate lofts road? Surely they didn't mean to redevelop LR to another use, I believe they mean the stadium.
Don't want to flog a dead horse, and I have posted in other threads regarding upgrading LR, but have we really exhausted all avenues in upgrading LR? It's seems the club has said the current stadium is not viable for growth, have any of you seen the report, including detail plans of a stadium upgrade report?
Would H&F willing to back QPR in staying at LR? Would they change planning controls on the site to ensure the planning guidelines are relaxed regarding density, building height, sight lines, noise control, environmental impact, building setback etc, and help QPR in land acquisition of surrounding sites like ellersie road and school end?
Did the club report include the possibilities of the above?
Needless to say I am the for lofus road upgrading camp, moving elsewhere will be costly and may take forever. |
Loftus Road's footprint is tiny. If that site was vacant today and we were looking to build a stadium on it we would probably only get planning permission for a stadium with probably 10-12k max capacity. Seat pitch, leg room, food/drink concourses would all need to be much bigger than currently.
"moving elsewhere will be costly and may take forever."
Trying to upgrade LR will be more costly. Any discussion of upgrading LR is probably similar to discussions that have taken place amongst Everton fans about doing the same to Goodison Park, another old stadium like ours hemmed in by housing. Again, our board like Everton's would have done it by now if it was in any way feasible and why Everton have also been looking to relocate for ages. |  |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 04:53 - Nov 25 with 2045 views | Hoopsie |
How would upgrading Loftus Road be more costly than building a new stadium in a new location unless you are given the subject land free of charge? Relocating is going to be at least twice as much as upgrading for sure. I am not sure if we need a 30,000 stadium, can’t see it happening if we are one of the many London clubs. Everton is different, it’s a bigger club and there’s only two in that city.
I think as a club have we actually exhaust all avenues looking at Loftus Road? We are a boutique club, we are not going to have an average attendance of 30,000 week in week out.
If the club could secure a site like LCS, I will be supportive, but looking at Warren farm saga I don’t think it’s easy. So that’s why I am asking about LR | |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 06:19 - Nov 25 with 2031 views | QPR_Jim |
| Staying in the Borough on 04:53 - Nov 25 by Hoopsie |
How would upgrading Loftus Road be more costly than building a new stadium in a new location unless you are given the subject land free of charge? Relocating is going to be at least twice as much as upgrading for sure. I am not sure if we need a 30,000 stadium, can’t see it happening if we are one of the many London clubs. Everton is different, it’s a bigger club and there’s only two in that city.
I think as a club have we actually exhaust all avenues looking at Loftus Road? We are a boutique club, we are not going to have an average attendance of 30,000 week in week out.
If the club could secure a site like LCS, I will be supportive, but looking at Warren farm saga I don’t think it’s easy. So that’s why I am asking about LR |
Sorry for the frustration but the options for redeveloping LR have been done to death.
Do we need a new 30,000 stadium? - The idea of the new stadium is to have space for more hospitality usage (match day and non match day), to have options for non-match day events so that the stadium contributes funds to help with the playing budget under FFP. Like it or not the stadium needs to contribute more so that we can grow as a club, the figures Hoos revealed about Burnley's income from their ground was an eye opener.
So can we build that ground on our current site? - The report overlays the footprint of a 30,000 seater over the LR site, we'd have to buy up houses and the school to fit the new stadium on our current site. If you believe we don't need a 30,000 seater stadium and think we could get by with 20,000 then you're still out of luck because any redevelopment of LR would need to be to modern standards under planning and building regs therefore access routes and aisle widths etc would reduce capacity.
Ultimately I think Hoos is right, we need to move to be sustainable. Currently LR is another cost rather than an asset which we can't afford under FFP. I think there's more discussion to be had regarding the owners and ownership of the new ground. For what it's worth I don't think renting the ground would work under FFP so I doubt we'd be renting it. I suspect that the owners will buy LR through their development business
as a site with potential to develop and make the money from the development of LR. As others have said, they will be wanting to make some money out of all this. |  | | |
| Staying in the Borough on 08:58 - Nov 25 with 1949 views | Hoopsie |
Do we need a 30,000 stadium? Frankly, i don't know but if I am going to say yes or no, i will probably say no.
Loftus Road with little or no hospitality amenities is probably not ideal at all with no revenues etc outside match day, but no, you don't need a 30,000 stadium to have such amenities because these facilities don't happen in the stand.
Would hospitality be a crucial revenue source for the club? Burnley is the only club in Burnley and the stadium catering for hospitality events probably make a lot of sense to me in that city because where else could you hold a major event or function in Burnley?
Not so sure about us as QPR is one of the many clubs in London and one of 3 in west london. There are many more places in London besides a stadium where you could hold events, conferences, functions etc, in hotels, conference halls, communities hall, schools etc etc. We will be competing with Fulham, Brentford and Chelsea amongst just football clubs to be vying for such businesses with very competitive pricing if not you get priced out. Burnley will have no such worries, they are probably a monopoly in that sense alone.
Hard to see a 30,000 stadium as something of a sustainable growth. With a steady average attendance never hitting 20,000 it is probably not going to fill to full unless its premier league football week in week out. Not sprouting doomsday nonsense but a new 30,000 stadium further out may at best be a financial burden, at worst a white elephant.
I am really interested to see what is the feasibility report they have done on the new stadium initiative with supporting analysis based on figures - financial, demographic, socio-economic impact and not just broad-based statements made like the one for Old Oak Common | |
| |
| Staying in the Borough on 12:22 - Nov 25 with 1882 views | QPR_Jim |
| Staying in the Borough on 08:58 - Nov 25 by Hoopsie |
Do we need a 30,000 stadium? Frankly, i don't know but if I am going to say yes or no, i will probably say no.
Loftus Road with little or no hospitality amenities is probably not ideal at all with no revenues etc outside match day, but no, you don't need a 30,000 stadium to have such amenities because these facilities don't happen in the stand.
Would hospitality be a crucial revenue source for the club? Burnley is the only club in Burnley and the stadium catering for hospitality events probably make a lot of sense to me in that city because where else could you hold a major event or function in Burnley?
Not so sure about us as QPR is one of the many clubs in London and one of 3 in west london. There are many more places in London besides a stadium where you could hold events, conferences, functions etc, in hotels, conference halls, communities hall, schools etc etc. We will be competing with Fulham, Brentford and Chelsea amongst just football clubs to be vying for such businesses with very competitive pricing if not you get priced out. Burnley will have no such worries, they are probably a monopoly in that sense alone.
Hard to see a 30,000 stadium as something of a sustainable growth. With a steady average attendance never hitting 20,000 it is probably not going to fill to full unless its premier league football week in week out. Not sprouting doomsday nonsense but a new 30,000 stadium further out may at best be a financial burden, at worst a white elephant.
I am really interested to see what is the feasibility report they have done on the new stadium initiative with supporting analysis based on figures - financial, demographic, socio-economic impact and not just broad-based statements made like the one for Old Oak Common |
You also can't add those amenities to LR and keep our current capacity, it would reduce.
The fact there are lots of places to hold events in West London isn't necessary a sign that the market is saturated, but it is a clear sign that there is demand.
You also cut yourself off from hosting some events/concerts if your venue is too small and keeping a low maximum capacity will limit the club's ability to profit on any future promotion to the premier league. We also don't currently have a great ground for first time visitors so it makes growing the club by attracting new supporters harder.
Their reasoning for wanting a 30,000 seater stadium is set out in the recent report, it would appear that you are very interested in the subject so it may be well worth your while to read the full document if you haven't already. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.