| Stadium Bit more info on 11:16 - Jul 3 with 3094 views | Antti_Heinola |
Conciliatory and positive noises from both sides. |  |
|  |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:21 - Jul 3 with 3055 views | CroydonCaptJack |
Looks promising.
Certainly not the usual confrontational stuff we have seen previously. |  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:33 - Jul 3 with 2985 views | DejR_vu |
I’m baffled as to why anyone thinks this is a good idea when it’s becoming increasingly evident that the club won’t own the new stadium. How can that be a good thing? |  |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:46 - Jul 3 with 2943 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:33 - Jul 3 by DejR_vu |
I’m baffled as to why anyone thinks this is a good idea when it’s becoming increasingly evident that the club won’t own the new stadium. How can that be a good thing? |
A community-owned stadium is arguably better than it effectively being owned by the club's owners, surely? Stops them from ever selling it up?
Think this is a pretty common (and successful) arrangement elsewhere. | |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:50 - Jul 3 with 2924 views | colinallcars |
Surely any such lease would have assurances on how long the club would have to use the stadium. I like most of us would prefer the Rangers to own the ground, but the council don't seem likely to agree. |  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:53 - Jul 3 with 2906 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:33 - Jul 3 by DejR_vu |
I’m baffled as to why anyone thinks this is a good idea when it’s becoming increasingly evident that the club won’t own the new stadium. How can that be a good thing? |
If it is a long lease I don't see it as an issue.
Arguably, by banking the money from the sale of LR and not having to fund the construction of the new one it gives us a chance to repair the Balance Sheet.
There would be implications going forward though as the annual lease charge is likely to be more than any depreciation charge on LR. | | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:58 - Jul 3 with 2877 views | BostonR |
Good start. Not sure why the Council have concerns on using a bond to raise finances. Norwich City used that vehicle to fund their training ground and it was over-subscribed.
The club really need to work with the Council on acquiring the land and getting the development approved. A 45,000 seater-stadium would be too big for QPR so we need to push our preferred plan and "show them the money". |  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 12:13 - Jul 3 with 2800 views | DejR_vu |
| Stadium Bit more info on 11:53 - Jul 3 by CroydonCaptJack |
If it is a long lease I don't see it as an issue.
Arguably, by banking the money from the sale of LR and not having to fund the construction of the new one it gives us a chance to repair the Balance Sheet.
There would be implications going forward though as the annual lease charge is likely to be more than any depreciation charge on LR. |
Off the top of my head:
1) freeholds can be sold, so we don’t know who the landlords will be in the future;
2) even long leases only give so much protection. They’re subject to rent reviews, requirements for maintenance etc.;
3) we will be paying rent. That’s a drain on future revenue / cash-flow;
4) we lose our one tangible asset from the balance sheet;
5) where does everyone think the money from LR is going to go? It won’t be into infrastructure as we won’t own the new stadium and the club are looking to fund the training ground on the back of more debt (which is another drain on future revenue);
6) given what’s happened since the owners arrived why would anyone trust them with anything, much less something as valuable as the stadium?
A lease arrangement might be a good option if you own nothing, but a cr@p one if you currently own a freehold.
Edit: just to add, isn’t one of the reasons for moving the current inability to generate non-Matchday revenue? Who’s going to benefit from non-matchday revenue from a stadium we don’t own, us or the owners of the stadium?
So we’ll still have all the overheads of running/maintaining a stadium, less revenue because we’re paying rent, no additional revenue from non-match day revenue and no capital asset. Genius. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 12:45]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:04 - Jul 3 with 2570 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Stadium Bit more info on 12:13 - Jul 3 by DejR_vu |
Off the top of my head:
1) freeholds can be sold, so we don’t know who the landlords will be in the future;
2) even long leases only give so much protection. They’re subject to rent reviews, requirements for maintenance etc.;
3) we will be paying rent. That’s a drain on future revenue / cash-flow;
4) we lose our one tangible asset from the balance sheet;
5) where does everyone think the money from LR is going to go? It won’t be into infrastructure as we won’t own the new stadium and the club are looking to fund the training ground on the back of more debt (which is another drain on future revenue);
6) given what’s happened since the owners arrived why would anyone trust them with anything, much less something as valuable as the stadium?
A lease arrangement might be a good option if you own nothing, but a cr@p one if you currently own a freehold.
Edit: just to add, isn’t one of the reasons for moving the current inability to generate non-Matchday revenue? Who’s going to benefit from non-matchday revenue from a stadium we don’t own, us or the owners of the stadium?
So we’ll still have all the overheads of running/maintaining a stadium, less revenue because we’re paying rent, no additional revenue from non-match day revenue and no capital asset. Genius. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 12:45]
|
Some very good points and I am not saying I favour it incidentally. I would prefer us to own it. Indeed, I had made the point about future costs in my post. We are not blessed with many options though so we need to bear that in mind.
Freeholds can be sold but the new landords would need to take on board any existing lease and lease terms will need to be agreed by our lawyers.
The arguments for leasing versus owning are certainly not as one sided as you refer and should not be dismissed out of hand, especially if the alternative is to not move at all.
Finally if we are leasing the whole ground for 100% our use then there is no reason we couldn't use it for non-match day uses. If the lease restricted our use to match days over then we would only be responsible for the costs/overheads relating to that day. | | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:07 - Jul 3 with 2558 views | nadera78 |
| Stadium Bit more info on 12:13 - Jul 3 by DejR_vu |
Off the top of my head:
1) freeholds can be sold, so we don’t know who the landlords will be in the future;
2) even long leases only give so much protection. They’re subject to rent reviews, requirements for maintenance etc.;
3) we will be paying rent. That’s a drain on future revenue / cash-flow;
4) we lose our one tangible asset from the balance sheet;
5) where does everyone think the money from LR is going to go? It won’t be into infrastructure as we won’t own the new stadium and the club are looking to fund the training ground on the back of more debt (which is another drain on future revenue);
6) given what’s happened since the owners arrived why would anyone trust them with anything, much less something as valuable as the stadium?
A lease arrangement might be a good option if you own nothing, but a cr@p one if you currently own a freehold.
Edit: just to add, isn’t one of the reasons for moving the current inability to generate non-Matchday revenue? Who’s going to benefit from non-matchday revenue from a stadium we don’t own, us or the owners of the stadium?
So we’ll still have all the overheads of running/maintaining a stadium, less revenue because we’re paying rent, no additional revenue from non-match day revenue and no capital asset. Genius. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 12:45]
|
It really depends how it's done. For example, the Florida Panthers (NHL ice hockey club) play in an arena built and owned by the local authority - and the club loses millions of dollars every year. The club's owner, however, has a licence to operate the arena through another company he owns - and that makes more money than the hockey club loses. So, taken in the round, the club makes enough to maintain its position. That's fairly common in North America.
Likewise, if QPR, or a subsidiary of QPR, had the rights to operate a council-owned stadium then the money from other events would come our way.
Not saying it's my preferred option but it all depends on the terms of the deal. | | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:12 - Jul 3 with 2527 views | nadera78 |
I do think, and have all along, that what the council really want is some kind of land swap - Loftus Rd (which they can build flats on) in exchange for Linford Christie (which they can't).
QPR, on the other hand, want a long-term lease at Linford Christie (similar to Warren Farm) and to use the proceeds of selling Loftus Rd towards building the new stadium. | | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:14 - Jul 3 with 2519 views | connell10 |
So who gets to say how the stadium is built and designed? I don't like the lease business, I think we should own our own stadium. |  |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:16 - Jul 3 with 2505 views | DejR_vu |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:07 - Jul 3 by nadera78 |
It really depends how it's done. For example, the Florida Panthers (NHL ice hockey club) play in an arena built and owned by the local authority - and the club loses millions of dollars every year. The club's owner, however, has a licence to operate the arena through another company he owns - and that makes more money than the hockey club loses. So, taken in the round, the club makes enough to maintain its position. That's fairly common in North America.
Likewise, if QPR, or a subsidiary of QPR, had the rights to operate a council-owned stadium then the money from other events would come our way.
Not saying it's my preferred option but it all depends on the terms of the deal. |
In the latter case, the lease would, in all probability, be to a stadium management company, and a sub-lease would be created in favour of the football club. The non-matchday revenue would be payable to the stadium management company, not the football club. Fine if the management company and football club were one and the same, but I think that highly unlikely.
I can see no potential upside to this and massive potential downside. It’s playing Russian Roulette with the club’s future. | |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:29 - Jul 3 with 2453 views | derbyhoop |
From the article it seems like the council have concerns about QPR's ability to fund the land and construction costs. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:46 - Jul 3 with 2392 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Good thread, and lots to ponder. Like everyone else, I;'d naturally prefer that we own our own stadium, but I hadn't realised there were so many alternatives.
For now, though, good that the noises are more positive. |  |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:54 - Jul 3 with 2371 views | LowerloftLad |
the freehold is a difficult one as we would share the ground with other company's so would we look at a share of a freehold
or could we lease then look to buy the freehold at a later date i thought there was a law from 2017 that means a freehold cant be sold to a third party after all the part buy part rent chaos
if it was to be the 999 year lease would many people really be that bothered anyway [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 14:00]
|  |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 14:08 - Jul 3 with 2316 views | QPR_Jim |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:07 - Jul 3 by nadera78 |
It really depends how it's done. For example, the Florida Panthers (NHL ice hockey club) play in an arena built and owned by the local authority - and the club loses millions of dollars every year. The club's owner, however, has a licence to operate the arena through another company he owns - and that makes more money than the hockey club loses. So, taken in the round, the club makes enough to maintain its position. That's fairly common in North America.
Likewise, if QPR, or a subsidiary of QPR, had the rights to operate a council-owned stadium then the money from other events would come our way.
Not saying it's my preferred option but it all depends on the terms of the deal. |
The key question is that if we go through a subsidiary would the revenue from non-match day events count toward FFP?
I don't know the answer but if it doesn't then we might as well stay at LR.
I do think your interpretation of LBHF's position and QPR's position is correct though. I think a Warren Farm type situation is better for the council. He seemed to suggest we buy the Linford Christie site but I assume it's low value due to planning restrictions and selling it would not return much money while permanently taking it away from the public. |  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 14:21 - Jul 3 with 2259 views | Phildo |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:54 - Jul 3 by LowerloftLad |
the freehold is a difficult one as we would share the ground with other company's so would we look at a share of a freehold
or could we lease then look to buy the freehold at a later date i thought there was a law from 2017 that means a freehold cant be sold to a third party after all the part buy part rent chaos
if it was to be the 999 year lease would many people really be that bothered anyway [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 14:00]
|
You can own a freehold solely or with a partner in for example a joint venture agreement.
You could have a long lease on agreed terms with an option or pre-emption over the freehold - for example first refusal if the local authority ever wanted to sell. The freehold value would depend on the lease- for example a 999 year lease at a peppercorn rent would make a freehold have almost no value. A short lease at a high rent means all the value lies in the freehold interest.
Basically it all depends on the terms which are agreed and anything we say now is conjecture. |  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 18:34 - Jul 3 with 1998 views | Boston |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:07 - Jul 3 by nadera78 |
It really depends how it's done. For example, the Florida Panthers (NHL ice hockey club) play in an arena built and owned by the local authority - and the club loses millions of dollars every year. The club's owner, however, has a licence to operate the arena through another company he owns - and that makes more money than the hockey club loses. So, taken in the round, the club makes enough to maintain its position. That's fairly common in North America.
Likewise, if QPR, or a subsidiary of QPR, had the rights to operate a council-owned stadium then the money from other events would come our way.
Not saying it's my preferred option but it all depends on the terms of the deal. |
Green Bay Packers | |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 22:22 - Jul 3 with 1736 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Stadium Bit more info on 13:12 - Jul 3 by nadera78 |
I do think, and have all along, that what the council really want is some kind of land swap - Loftus Rd (which they can build flats on) in exchange for Linford Christie (which they can't).
QPR, on the other hand, want a long-term lease at Linford Christie (similar to Warren Farm) and to use the proceeds of selling Loftus Rd towards building the new stadium. |
Whilst the conciliatory noises are encouraging I must say that I'm concerned at the prospect of selling a major asset only to lease a new stadium. Some serious questions need to be asked to unravel our owners' intent and understand the model before we commit.
IMHO they should invest their own money (as well as proceeds from Loftus Road) towards a stadium that the club owns, not leases. There is little excuse as spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 22:26]
|  | | |
| Stadium Bit more info on 00:05 - Jul 4 with 1623 views | Hoopsie |
If we are not going to own the stadium, then we won't be spending a single dime to get the new stadium built?
If it doesn't cost us any thing other than tenancy rent, we won't be having any say in the design, capacity, facilities etc of the new stadium? So what is stopping the financier/owners to put an athletics track around the pitch?
If we don't own it (and if lease agreement can be altered or annulled, say with disagreement in rental increase etc etc), what is stopping the owners to put a rival club like a brentfird in and kick us out?
A firm NO |  |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 08:29 - Jul 4 with 1438 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Stadium Bit more info on 22:22 - Jul 3 by Benny_the_Ball |
Whilst the conciliatory noises are encouraging I must say that I'm concerned at the prospect of selling a major asset only to lease a new stadium. Some serious questions need to be asked to unravel our owners' intent and understand the model before we commit.
IMHO they should invest their own money (as well as proceeds from Loftus Road) towards a stadium that the club owns, not leases. There is little excuse as spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 22:26]
|
Agreed.
100%. | |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 08:41 - Jul 4 with 1408 views | connell10 |
| Stadium Bit more info on 22:22 - Jul 3 by Benny_the_Ball |
Whilst the conciliatory noises are encouraging I must say that I'm concerned at the prospect of selling a major asset only to lease a new stadium. Some serious questions need to be asked to unravel our owners' intent and understand the model before we commit.
IMHO they should invest their own money (as well as proceeds from Loftus Road) towards a stadium that the club owns, not leases. There is little excuse as spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP. [Post edited 3 Jul 2019 22:26]
|
Spot on mate. | |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
| Stadium Bit more info on 09:46 - Jul 4 with 1346 views | Clive_Anderson |
If they want to move to a new stadium we don't own then fine. Just don't sell the old one, we might (in fact probably will) need it sometime in the distant future. At the very least it's a good bargaining chip when it come to renew the lease.
I bet West Ham supporters wish the owners had kept their old stadium instead of flogging it for less than they paid for Andy Carroll. Now they are stuck in that oversized dump....forever. [Post edited 4 Jul 2019 9:58]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
