By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Not everyone likes football. Some people prefer parks. It’s arrogant to think QPR is the most important thing in West London, even though it is.
Same reason we don’t build on the White City Estate, Leisure Centre, or Jack Tizard school.
If we want to get a new stadium built, I think the board need to accept they will need to provide something in return in terms of community assets. I get they impression they arn’t that keen in social philanthropy.
With Westfield's getting bigger and some shopping centres closing down, I was wondering whether there'd be an opportunity to buy the West12 shopping centre at some point. Could probably fit a ground on that site. Unlikely though.
Wormholt not the best of parks but too small anyhow. Ravenscourt park is bigger and the Tories tried to sell part of it in the 70s when they were in power. However, as stated earlier the needs of the community in general outweigh the needs of football fans. If the Tories regain control of the council they may flog it to us.
There’s a part of Roundwood Park in Willesden which just seems to have funfairs or film crews parked up in it, it’s detached from the landscaped part of the park which has the playgrounds, basketball courts and cafes - so there’s definitely some parks which seem to be a bit of waste - kind of how I saw huge swathes of Scrubs to be honest.
Anyways, As a resident of Brent I can say that the council here does have history in giving away land to developers in return for community assets like libraries etc. If you were being cynical you’d say they are skint and would probably welcome the right type of development. Obviously not in W12 but I wonder whether QPR have already made enquiries with Ealing and Brent?
There’s a part of Roundwood Park in Willesden which just seems to have funfairs or film crews parked up in it, it’s detached from the landscaped part of the park which has the playgrounds, basketball courts and cafes - so there’s definitely some parks which seem to be a bit of waste - kind of how I saw huge swathes of Scrubs to be honest.
Anyways, As a resident of Brent I can say that the council here does have history in giving away land to developers in return for community assets like libraries etc. If you were being cynical you’d say they are skint and would probably welcome the right type of development. Obviously not in W12 but I wonder whether QPR have already made enquiries with Ealing and Brent?
I have a feeling that our owners would not be interested in developing our stadium at all, unless it involves profitable and private housing development.
No proof mind, just decades and decades of similier incidents of billionaires raping London property and land for private gain, especially Reuben who is now our director.
I have a feeling that our owners would not be interested in developing our stadium at all, unless it involves profitable and private housing development.
No proof mind, just decades and decades of similier incidents of billionaires raping London property and land for private gain, especially Reuben who is now our director.
Very possible that our owners' interest involves profitable and private housing development. But we know that on our own, without rich owners prepared to bankroll the club we will not survive as a Championship club. Our old stadium's lack of facilities for non match day income (and match day too - who get's to the ground early for a beer?) and FFP makes it so.
Even if our owners' motives aren't solely with the club in mind, can their private interests and ours not co-exist? Honestly think we'd drop down a league or two if we lost their backing, and then without another sugar daddy we'd have no means of getting a new stadium built, and likely no means to improve Loftus Rd for the small hardcore that remain. It's a tricky one.
I have a feeling that our owners would not be interested in developing our stadium at all, unless it involves profitable and private housing development.
No proof mind, just decades and decades of similier incidents of billionaires raping London property and land for private gain, especially Reuben who is now our director.
It’s hardly a damning indictment of the owner’s intentions. Plenty of football clubs use development of residential accommodation to help fund new stadiums. Arsenal being a prime example.
At the end of the day the owners have to find a way to make it stack up and as we’re based in west London this is always likely to include residential development.
Very possible that our owners' interest involves profitable and private housing development. But we know that on our own, without rich owners prepared to bankroll the club we will not survive as a Championship club. Our old stadium's lack of facilities for non match day income (and match day too - who get's to the ground early for a beer?) and FFP makes it so.
Even if our owners' motives aren't solely with the club in mind, can their private interests and ours not co-exist? Honestly think we'd drop down a league or two if we lost their backing, and then without another sugar daddy we'd have no means of getting a new stadium built, and likely no means to improve Loftus Rd for the small hardcore that remain. It's a tricky one.
'Even if our owners' motives aren't solely with the club in mind, can their private interests and ours not co-exist?'
Well, as someone who grew up in social housing, no.
I love QPR and would love to see us in a local stadium fit for the club but i'm not wiling to throw local families waiting for housing under the bus. Let's not forget that 150 Grenfell families are still not housed, even if it is in a different borough.
When we ask ourselves, 'who is mad enough to buy a football club?', the answer in our case is private property developers.
I can't speak for the council but i'm sure if the QPR board said 'let us buy Workholt Park / LCS / Old Oak (or whatever) for a new stadium and we'lll put 10,000 social housing homes (for example) in the Borough in exchange for the inconvenience, H&F would bite our fvcking hands off.
Let's not whore ourselves out to these fvckers. They own the deeds but we own the soul.
It’s hardly a damning indictment of the owner’s intentions. Plenty of football clubs use development of residential accommodation to help fund new stadiums. Arsenal being a prime example.
At the end of the day the owners have to find a way to make it stack up and as we’re based in west London this is always likely to include residential development.
I know what i think they should do.
1) Sell us to the Council and the fans, let the council pay for a new stadium which would be integrated with assets like youth clubs / sports centres /community centres / small business hubs / school facilities / medical centres / adult colleges / drug rehab etc.
2) Fck off back to the world of cheap airlines and hedge funds.
I know this isn't going to happen, and I sound like a mad commie bastard, but is it really that unfeasible?
See the Preston Model for a rough outline of what i'm talking about:
1) Sell us to the Council and the fans, let the council pay for a new stadium which would be integrated with assets like youth clubs / sports centres /community centres / small business hubs / school facilities / medical centres / adult colleges / drug rehab etc.
2) Fck off back to the world of cheap airlines and hedge funds.
I know this isn't going to happen, and I sound like a mad commie bastard, but is it really that unfeasible?
See the Preston Model for a rough outline of what i'm talking about:
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 22:34]
Sounds great in theory but I suspect all a bit pie in the sky.
For starters, what makes you think the council would have any interest in buying the club? How many professional football clubs are owned by councils?
Sounds great in theory but I suspect all a bit pie in the sky.
For starters, what makes you think the council would have any interest in buying the club? How many professional football clubs are owned by councils?
I’m not sure it’s even allowed.
Well why not?
Councils are in the business of creating and maintaining community assets. That's what they are for. Is QPR not a community asset? Consider what QPR in the Community do? Same thing as the council does.
Check out Supporters Direct's proposals from a few years ago:
Biggest stumbling block I can think of is the political backlash of paying footballers millions of £s of council tax money. If it ever happens, the council better make sure the non football supporting community get something out of it.
Councils are in the business of creating and maintaining community assets. That's what they are for. Is QPR not a community asset? Consider what QPR in the Community do? Same thing as the council does.
Check out Supporters Direct's proposals from a few years ago:
Biggest stumbling block I can think of is the political backlash of paying footballers millions of £s of council tax money. If it ever happens, the council better make sure the non football supporting community get something out of it.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 22:55]
A couple of reasons off the top of my head. Most councils already have funding issues. Owning a football club is a sure fire way to lose money.
The community asset point is interesting. I’ve often wondered if us fans could get Loftus Road listed by the council as an asset of community value. This would throw a real spanner in the works if the owners tried to redevelop Loftus Road.
Councils are in the business of creating and maintaining community assets. That's what they are for. Is QPR not a community asset? Consider what QPR in the Community do? Same thing as the council does.
Check out Supporters Direct's proposals from a few years ago:
Biggest stumbling block I can think of is the political backlash of paying footballers millions of £s of council tax money. If it ever happens, the council better make sure the non football supporting community get something out of it.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 22:55]
Fcuk that, we could be run by tories. I hate the tories
A couple of reasons off the top of my head. Most councils already have funding issues. Owning a football club is a sure fire way to lose money.
The community asset point is interesting. I’ve often wondered if us fans could get Loftus Road listed by the council as an asset of community value. This would throw a real spanner in the works if the owners tried to redevelop Loftus Road.
Football clubs don't have to be loss making. It's usually a political choice, usually by owners who are either stupid or looking to make the money back later.
How we can reduce our bills:
1) We made a loss of £17m last year. From a squad of 23, to be breaking even we would have to knock of an average of £14,000 for each player. Not that I know wage figures, but I think that can be done if we get rid of senior players that over lap.
Do we really need all of Scowen / Cousins / Luongo / Freeman / Chair / Tilt / Manning / Goss for 2/3 CM positions for example?
Can Shodipo or BOS do Wsloeks job for a lot less money? Again no idea what he's on but i'm sure it's more than them. These are only examples as i like those players.
Just some ideas. Again, never going to happen but imagine if it did.
A couple of reasons off the top of my head. Most councils already have funding issues. Owning a football club is a sure fire way to lose money.
The community asset point is interesting. I’ve often wondered if us fans could get Loftus Road listed by the council as an asset of community value. This would throw a real spanner in the works if the owners tried to redevelop Loftus Road.
It's an interesting thought but wouldn't listing Loftus rd just increase the running costs of the club and potentially destroy us?
It's an interesting thought but wouldn't listing Loftus rd just increase the running costs of the club and potentially destroy us?
I think he means listing as a community asset, which means it can only be used as a football stadium.
Often happens with Pubs to stop developers knocking them down and transforming them into flats. Won’t cost any more to maintain, just means it can’t be sold off.
With Westfield's getting bigger and some shopping centres closing down, I was wondering whether there'd be an opportunity to buy the West12 shopping centre at some point. Could probably fit a ground on that site. Unlikely though.
They could of and didn’t take the chance when it arose at the diary crest site 110 million I’d guess not enough pay back for the board is the reason
I think he means listing as a community asset, which means it can only be used as a football stadium.
Often happens with Pubs to stop developers knocking them down and transforming them into flats. Won’t cost any more to maintain, just means it can’t be sold off.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2019 0:22]
Correct. I’ve not heard of any football stadiums with ACV status which is surprising when you consider their role in the local community. It would basically give the fans a greater say over the owner’s future plans for Loftus Road.
The way it works is under the Localism Act once a building is registered as an ACV, if the owners decide to sell the stadium then the nominating community group would be given the right to bid for the asset within a six month period. Get the buckets out!
We wouldn’t have a right to buy so the owners could still sell to whoever they choose. But where it gets interesting is that we’ve seen with pubs that once they have been registered as an ACV you rarely see them change use as the local planning authority tend to take it into account even though in theory it’s not a planning policy issue.
I’d say it’s well worth exploring if we have concerns over the owner’s intentions for Loftus Road which I personally don’t at this stage. But perhaps something to bear in mind for the future.
Football clubs don't have to be loss making. It's usually a political choice, usually by owners who are either stupid or looking to make the money back later.
How we can reduce our bills:
1) We made a loss of £17m last year. From a squad of 23, to be breaking even we would have to knock of an average of £14,000 for each player. Not that I know wage figures, but I think that can be done if we get rid of senior players that over lap.
Do we really need all of Scowen / Cousins / Luongo / Freeman / Chair / Tilt / Manning / Goss for 2/3 CM positions for example?
Can Shodipo or BOS do Wsloeks job for a lot less money? Again no idea what he's on but i'm sure it's more than them. These are only examples as i like those players.
Just some ideas. Again, never going to happen but imagine if it did.
It's not the owners anymore it's Hoos who is in charge of balancing the books and he's repeatedly identified our infrastructure as an issue that's holding us back at staying competitive at this level as our parachute payments decrease.
He's made it clear that renting two training facilities is a cost we can't continue with and the club have pushed to get a new training ground which seems to be imminent now. With the ground LH has pointed out repeatedly that it restricts our non-matchday revenue, there's not enough space for events or conferences, so we're missing out on revenue that other clubs can get. The club need to find a site for a new stadium if we want to be competitive at this level.
I don't see how being owned by the council will help, they can't afford to run their current services without adding staff to look after us. They may have the land to find a site for a new ground but not the money to build it. Your ideas for reducing our bills are fine but it will just be reducing our losses meaning we will still be making a loss. We could have a team full of youth team graduates and still make a loss judging by our latest accounts, so what then?
I don't see the problem with QPR selling Loftus road for housing if we have a new stadium in W12. The stadium would need to be owned by the club to have any of the benefits for FFP that LH talks about, so assuming that is the case I don't understand what the problem would be or how the local council would do any better.
hindsight can be wonderful,there was a time when we were good, had 25000 regulalry ( with terraces) and a bit of ££££, we SHOULD have bought the old white city, made that into a 40, 000 stadium. and then what? no one knew wembley was closing for refit, and dons would be homeless, maybe fa buy in and take it to 60,000 and qpr become the hub of football.....oh well...
It's not the owners anymore it's Hoos who is in charge of balancing the books and he's repeatedly identified our infrastructure as an issue that's holding us back at staying competitive at this level as our parachute payments decrease.
He's made it clear that renting two training facilities is a cost we can't continue with and the club have pushed to get a new training ground which seems to be imminent now. With the ground LH has pointed out repeatedly that it restricts our non-matchday revenue, there's not enough space for events or conferences, so we're missing out on revenue that other clubs can get. The club need to find a site for a new stadium if we want to be competitive at this level.
I don't see how being owned by the council will help, they can't afford to run their current services without adding staff to look after us. They may have the land to find a site for a new ground but not the money to build it. Your ideas for reducing our bills are fine but it will just be reducing our losses meaning we will still be making a loss. We could have a team full of youth team graduates and still make a loss judging by our latest accounts, so what then?
I don't see the problem with QPR selling Loftus road for housing if we have a new stadium in W12. The stadium would need to be owned by the club to have any of the benefits for FFP that LH talks about, so assuming that is the case I don't understand what the problem would be or how the local council would do any better.
Absolutely!
Me neither!
But social and (actually affordable) housing and at no cost to the taxpayer.
You are right we do not need to be owned by the council but we need to pay our dues which is seems the money givers do not want to do.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
