| New Promo film on Old Oak on 15:09 - Jan 28 with 1196 views | ranger08 |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 09:03 - Jan 28 by Konk |
From an outsider’s perspective, I really don’t see that Fernandes has any more of a compelling case to redevelop that site than any other property developer. It’s a big site in an in-demand city with some of the highest property prices in the world, and a site which will potentially have excellent transport links. There would be no shortage of people looking to develop it, and they’d all presumably be obliged to put in schools, doctors, shops etc too as they are in the King’s Cross redevelopment featured in the video. Knocking-up some “Affordable” housing on the LR site — wouldn’t any alternative developer also be obliged to provide similar at OOC or nearby? The choice isn’t a new QPR stadium, loads of new flats and a Jamie’s Italian or the site being a desolate muddy field forever.
The only difference, I would imagine, is that Fernandes would stick a stadium on the site, but most potential residents would presumably rather not have 40,000 punters turning up for the football or Rod Stewart gigs every few days. I can’t see how the development needs a stadium for it to be successful.
Also whilst you’re regenerating another part of the borough, what happens to the pubs, take-aways etc in W12? If you look at Moss Side, for instance, the vast majority of the places that relied on match day trade shut not long after City left. So whilst the area around the new stadium has had some investment, old pubs re-opening or being spruced-up, Moss Side has been adversely affected by the move. Arsenal’s not a great comparison to draw because they moved a few hundred yards, had a lot of resentment from local businesses that were driven out of the area to alternative sites mile away (i.e. lost local jobs) and other than the workers during the construction phase, have largely replaced full-time jobs in the area with low-paid, part-time roles. The same pubs, take-aways etc are used as at Highbury and other than the increase in capacity, and hence a higher spend on match days, it’s hard to see that the Emirates has been any sort of catalyst for regeneration.
And you have to take talk of 55,000 jobs with a massive pinch of salt too — TFL, for instance, employ 22,000 people across their whole network. You always get this when someone’s bidding for something; hosting the U-10 European badminton championships will bring £43tn into the local economy, create 300,000 new jobs and bring about peace in the Middle-east. 55,000 is an awful lot of jobs. How many of those would be for six hours every couple of weeks on minimum wage?
The most compelling argument I think you’d have is one that says that LR is holding the club back, families can’t take their kids because of capacity restrictions etc and there’s no other viable site for you to move to in the borough. But even then, as a resident/councillor, whilst I’d have sympathy for that position when it came to planning permission for a new stadium at OOC, but does that mean you’re entitled to cash-in on the whole site’s redevelopment and the potential use CPOs in your favour? NB. I know less than fu ck-all about planning considerations! |
Some very good points…
I'm personally tired of all the PR stunts the club are doing, there is a certain amount of rubbish I can take… Use the videos in the meetings with the GLA/MDC/ABC & BBC but stop leading fans on.
Nothing has been started let alone finished, no stadium, no training ground! So until I'm proved otherwise all these PR stunts are garbage and I'd rather not have them released.
Honestly, some fans on here really need to do some fact finding before deciding what style font they want their names printed on, in their new shiny seats, in our new 120k seater stadium, built in West London's new Canary Wharf.
Rant over… Bring on Stoke! |  | |  |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 17:46 - Jan 28 with 1146 views | derbyhoop |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 13:43 - Jan 28 by Konk |
Difference being that Pride Park was the catalyst for redevelopment, whereas OOC will be redeveloped with or without QPR. It doesn’t need a stadium. Also, Derby’s gates have always been pretty good; it’s a proper footballing city with just the one club. And whilst I’m loathe to defend Chelsea, the fickle twa ts always used to get big crowds when they played Liverpool or Man United, it was when they were playing anyone else they weren’t much to write home about.
I’m not sure that establishing QPR as 8-10th place club in the PL would be enough to grow support other than in the way we did; partially through a new generation, but also through transplants and tourists. I think we’re similar sized clubs, although you have a far larger hinterland, and I’d be mortified if we went up to 40k, because as well as being a tourist magnet it would need 15,000 Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal fans to fill it. Chelsea have grown as a club by spunking the best part of £1bn, winning league titles, FA cups and now the CL and yet they still often end up advertising tickets availability. |
The redevelopment at Pride Park was on hold until DCFC did the deal to move from the Baseball Ground, where they weren't always filling a ground with a capacity reduced to 18k.
The prospect of finishing 8-10th and losing to the big 4-6 will lead to diminishing crowds unless there are occasional (cup) successes but it works for Spurs and Everton. And as you say we might need to attract the tourists and transients that have gone to the Cottage in the last 10 years.
With anew ground they can design in the flexibility to switch from 30k when we play Stoke to 40k when we host the 2025 equivalent of One Direction. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 17:53 - Jan 28 with 1144 views | nadera78 |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 17:46 - Jan 28 by derbyhoop |
The redevelopment at Pride Park was on hold until DCFC did the deal to move from the Baseball Ground, where they weren't always filling a ground with a capacity reduced to 18k.
The prospect of finishing 8-10th and losing to the big 4-6 will lead to diminishing crowds unless there are occasional (cup) successes but it works for Spurs and Everton. And as you say we might need to attract the tourists and transients that have gone to the Cottage in the last 10 years.
With anew ground they can design in the flexibility to switch from 30k when we play Stoke to 40k when we host the 2025 equivalent of One Direction. |
Are you seriously comparing us to Spurs and Everton? They are, always have been, and always will be bigger than QPR. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. | | | |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 17:59 - Jan 28 with 1130 views | Lblock |
I believe the Bungle Brothers masterplan is to buy the land for £600 million
And then sell it 6 months later for £475 million
What could possibly go wrong? |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 21:21 - Jan 28 with 1066 views | PeterHucker |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 00:52 - Jan 28 by hoopstilidie |
Not a huge understanding of how these things work then your mate? |
He's a local councillor in the borough so I'd say he probably does understand it.
The land is privately owned so QPR can't do anything with that land and the council can't force the various private owners to give up their land.
Hammersmith & Fulham council are as confused as we are about why Fernandes is spending such a lot of time and money on a project that he has no capability to get off the ground because as I keep saying he doesn't own that land.
But if you feel you have a more detailed insight on the situation, then please enlighten me and I can pass it on to him. |  | | |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 23:43 - Jan 28 with 1039 views | daveB |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 21:21 - Jan 28 by PeterHucker |
He's a local councillor in the borough so I'd say he probably does understand it.
The land is privately owned so QPR can't do anything with that land and the council can't force the various private owners to give up their land.
Hammersmith & Fulham council are as confused as we are about why Fernandes is spending such a lot of time and money on a project that he has no capability to get off the ground because as I keep saying he doesn't own that land.
But if you feel you have a more detailed insight on the situation, then please enlighten me and I can pass it on to him. |
I'm probably wrong but doesn't the mayor get the final say on who gets the land, what is built and where? Once thats decided the land owners either sell up to the developers or are forced to. The big obstacle is Car Giant who have submitted their own plans for the development but the Mayor has said they want a football stadium as part of this development so we must stand a chance. |  | | |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 00:12 - Jan 29 with 1029 views | hoopstilidie |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 21:21 - Jan 28 by PeterHucker |
He's a local councillor in the borough so I'd say he probably does understand it.
The land is privately owned so QPR can't do anything with that land and the council can't force the various private owners to give up their land.
Hammersmith & Fulham council are as confused as we are about why Fernandes is spending such a lot of time and money on a project that he has no capability to get off the ground because as I keep saying he doesn't own that land.
But if you feel you have a more detailed insight on the situation, then please enlighten me and I can pass it on to him. |
No problem. Just point him towards the powers relating to infrastructure regeneration, land acquisitions including Compulsory Purchase Orders, adopting streets, and business and financial support and the preferred bidder selection system.
I'm surprised he isn't already aware of this stuff to be honest. |  |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 08:36 - Jan 29 with 990 views | derbyhoop |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 17:53 - Jan 28 by nadera78 |
Are you seriously comparing us to Spurs and Everton? They are, always have been, and always will be bigger than QPR. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. |
Are - I accept
Always have been - for the last 100 years. True
Always will be - less certain.
Huddersfield were the top club around 1930. Brentford were top flight in 1950. Burnley one of the top clubs in the late 50s/ early 60s. Things don't stay the same.
If the deeds match the talk then the current positions of teams like Spurs and Everton is the level we should be aspiring to.
I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. | |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 08:46 - Jan 29 with 985 views | Konk |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 08:36 - Jan 29 by derbyhoop |
Are - I accept
Always have been - for the last 100 years. True
Always will be - less certain.
Huddersfield were the top club around 1930. Brentford were top flight in 1950. Burnley one of the top clubs in the late 50s/ early 60s. Things don't stay the same.
If the deeds match the talk then the current positions of teams like Spurs and Everton is the level we should be aspiring to.
I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. |
It’s taken Abramovich £1bn to get Chelsea to a point where they’re now arguably/probably a bigger club than Tottenham and Everton. Faffing about in midtable of the PL might bump up your gates and increase your true support at the same time, but the days of smaller clubs winning league titles is long gone, without someone throwing hundreds of millions at it. I really can’t see Rangers ever being on a par with either club in terms of support unless they were regularly winning trophies over a fair few years (like, twenty odd). And don’t forget that both Everton and Tottenham have plans to move to 50,000 stadiums of their own, so even if you ended up with 40,000 and found 20-25,000 new regulars, you’d still be some way behind them in terms of gates. Not having a dig at Rangers here — the same is true of Fulham. |  |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 09:39 - Jan 29 with 953 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 08:46 - Jan 29 by Konk |
It’s taken Abramovich £1bn to get Chelsea to a point where they’re now arguably/probably a bigger club than Tottenham and Everton. Faffing about in midtable of the PL might bump up your gates and increase your true support at the same time, but the days of smaller clubs winning league titles is long gone, without someone throwing hundreds of millions at it. I really can’t see Rangers ever being on a par with either club in terms of support unless they were regularly winning trophies over a fair few years (like, twenty odd). And don’t forget that both Everton and Tottenham have plans to move to 50,000 stadiums of their own, so even if you ended up with 40,000 and found 20-25,000 new regulars, you’d still be some way behind them in terms of gates. Not having a dig at Rangers here — the same is true of Fulham. |
I think most people will realise that you're not digging Rangers, Konk.
When the last tranche of clubs made the move from small to medium, or medium to large, they did so in a far more equitable environment. First and foremost, putting a good team together was easier to achieve as wages were practically uniform under the minimum wage. Underage talent wasn't hovered up by the big clubs to anywhere near the same degree as information was scarce, loaning out wasn't an option so they could only have so many youths, transport was minimal.
Once a team was put together, keeping it was easier too, sponsorship didn't corrupt the competitiveness of the league, foreign tv deals didn't exist, prize money was pathetic. Other teams didn't have same perverse power to tempt your best players away, even if the minimum wage would allow them to 'overpay' them. Plus, crucially, there was no freedom of contract, and no culture of workers' rights. If you wanted to keep them, you did. They were your slaves.
It was entirely possible to build a team to compete and to carry on competing ad infinitum. Not easy, but possible. It was possible to migrate from good to great. Now, the club has to mutate. There is no other way. |  |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 09:55 - Jan 29 with 944 views | Konk |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 09:39 - Jan 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
I think most people will realise that you're not digging Rangers, Konk.
When the last tranche of clubs made the move from small to medium, or medium to large, they did so in a far more equitable environment. First and foremost, putting a good team together was easier to achieve as wages were practically uniform under the minimum wage. Underage talent wasn't hovered up by the big clubs to anywhere near the same degree as information was scarce, loaning out wasn't an option so they could only have so many youths, transport was minimal.
Once a team was put together, keeping it was easier too, sponsorship didn't corrupt the competitiveness of the league, foreign tv deals didn't exist, prize money was pathetic. Other teams didn't have same perverse power to tempt your best players away, even if the minimum wage would allow them to 'overpay' them. Plus, crucially, there was no freedom of contract, and no culture of workers' rights. If you wanted to keep them, you did. They were your slaves.
It was entirely possible to build a team to compete and to carry on competing ad infinitum. Not easy, but possible. It was possible to migrate from good to great. Now, the club has to mutate. There is no other way. |
Spot on, Brian. Johnny Haynes spending his whole career at Fulham, Finney at PNE, Lofthouse at Bolton etc; if any of our crop of youngsters are any good, we’ll be lucky to keep them for more than a season, even if we were back in the PL. Look at the summer Southampton had; hopefully they can keep spotting and producing replacements, but it’s so demoralising. The minute we get a good manager like Hodgson, you know it’s only a matter of time before they’re poached. Happy days! Jack Walker was able to win the league spunking and redevelop a stadium, spunking a few dozen million; you need hundreds of millions to challenge for the CL spots now. | |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 14:59 - Jan 29 with 906 views | ranger08 |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 00:12 - Jan 29 by hoopstilidie |
No problem. Just point him towards the powers relating to infrastructure regeneration, land acquisitions including Compulsory Purchase Orders, adopting streets, and business and financial support and the preferred bidder selection system.
I'm surprised he isn't already aware of this stuff to be honest. |
Taking your QPR hats off… does anyone actually understand a C.P.O, how it works, when/how/why it is used? and what is really going on here?
I’m not an expert, but do know a bit about CPO’s and work in financing land/properties.
Firstly, to serve a CPO on a business the size of Cargiant.
If this is Fernandes trump card and what he’s risking QPR’s future on then he is going to ruin QPR like he did with Caterham JUST '000x worse.
A CPO on a business the size (Turnover/figures) of Cargiant has NEVER happened. QPR’s fans are dreaming if they think this will EVER happen!
I’ll explain why:
1) To legally server a CPO on Cargiant, this would only happen IF Cargiant were not playing ball with the government on the re-generation plans and this would only be a last ditch option after every other option had been exhausted due to costs. The GLA knows they're willing developers.
2) IF Cargiant were not willing developers, not playing ball AND a CPO was the only way the development could progress, it would cost HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and a MASSIVE legal battle would start, a battle which would set back the development for years (With appeals etc). Something the government wouldn’t want nor would QPR or Cargiant.
Also, If the CPO was served:
a) Would Cargiant close the business? If so, how much that would cost to liquidate?!?!?
b) If Cargiant did not close the business they would be “forced” to move... If so, how long would it take for them to find a location/move? And how much would that all cost?!?!? It would have to be similar sized, and we all know that land in London isn’t cheap!
Also maybe worth understanding who are the developers as well, yes its QPR Vs Cargiant… but Cargiant have London & Regional in there corner. This is a massive trump card… Like I said, I work in financing properties. London & Regional are MASSIVE players in WORLD (Not just London) developments, so the funding will be in place to develop the land and they would be more than capable of completing the whole Old Oak project.
Fans also seem to think QPR’s bid will be “preferred” to Cargiants (OR possibly any other developers)…
WHY??
Again, take your QPR hats off and think about that…
Why would the government favour QPR?
If the government owned the land then this would make sense… but they don’t, so back to my first point, a CPO will be needed…
And to even think it’s because Boris is mates with Fernandes and flies Air Asia… please! Utter nonsense.
QPR's argument to be developers seems to be led around the stadium being the catalyst for the regeneration.
I think there is a bigger argument that the Old Oak Station would actually be the catalysis... and even though I have QPR in my heart, I personally wouldn't want to live next to the stadium.
Also, The fact the promotional video says the non-stadium plans would create a "dormitory", is also non-sense because either plans would have to include x amount of homes/affordable homes, hospitals, schools, libraries, etc… the government would enforce this.
Anyway, to sum, this is how I see it.
I don't think QPR have actually planned this all out well enough or have handled the whole situation as professionally as possible.
EITHER, the stadium will be built on another area within the development or it won’t, forget Cargiants land UNLESS Fernandes & CO make Cargiant an offer they’re unable to refuse (Money they don’t have).
The GLA do like the idea of a stadium which is very positive news, but the problem will then be if the QPR stadium will be built on its own by QPR (So no houses to off set the stadium build costs) and if it won’t, where does that leave QPR and what financial situation will it be in?
Don’t kid yourselves, understand the situation and the financial risks Fernandes is taking with QPR.
I don’t want to paint a gloomy picture, but I also don’t want to be fed rubbish by Fernandes!
(Remember, Fernandes said the stadium would be built 2018 and we’d have a state of the art training facility at Warren Farm… none of which have even been started). | | | |
| New Promo film on Old Oak on 15:25 - Jan 29 with 894 views | W5R |
A stadium within view of Wembley. Hmmm This is a Tory government, all they care about is cash and well, thats it.
fernandes has no cash, tune group is fecked...like the west ham owners the government will soon back off when they dont see cash |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
