| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:17 - Feb 18 with 2064 views | hoopdog |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 15:46 - Feb 18 by joe90 |
I live in the area and the demographic has changed. If you look around Peckham, Camberwell, New Cross, Deptford, Brockley etc lots of affluent 30 somethings moving to the area having kids, Millwall should be the go to team. They do a lot in the community, and were very active in supporting the protest against the closure of Lewisham hospital. If you look at how London Bridge and Deptford Stn have been redeveloped the plans for the Den do not look out of place at all.
However, the new demographic I mention probably wouldn't want to take their kids to Millwall, haha, too snobby! |
Brentford ready for the start of next season
Wimbledon new stadium well under way
Fulham to redvelope stadium and increase capacity
Millwall wanting to upgrade
We'll be left competing with Orient's ambition to whose last |  | |  |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:26 - Feb 18 with 2051 views | hoopdog |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:44 - Feb 18 by Sir_Chops |
We have been told that Loftus Road isn’t sustainable for QPR, but this alone makes me question that message. There Could be other reasons why those in control may not consider LR to be an option aside from what is physically possible to build. |
Simples mate
L R housing development would , no could ! go a long way toward paying for the intended new stadium certainly the L C | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:27 - Feb 18 with 2048 views | NorthantsHoop |
Think Millwall should focus their efforts on laying a new pitch. The current one is a disgrace for a team in the Championship. |  | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:31 - Feb 18 with 2035 views | Nov77 |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:27 - Feb 18 by NorthantsHoop |
Think Millwall should focus their efforts on laying a new pitch. The current one is a disgrace for a team in the Championship. |
ours is crap too. |  |
| |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:37 - Feb 18 with 2022 views | NorthantsHoop |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 16:31 - Feb 18 by Nov77 |
ours is crap too. |
Not that bad, think it is in pretty good condition. | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 17:03 - Feb 18 with 2002 views | hoopdog |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:44 - Feb 18 by Sir_Chops |
We have been told that Loftus Road isn’t sustainable for QPR, but this alone makes me question that message. There Could be other reasons why those in control may not consider LR to be an option aside from what is physically possible to build. |
Simples mate
L R housing development would , no could ! go a long way toward paying for the intended new stadium certainly the L C | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 17:53 - Feb 18 with 1921 views | Sir_Chops |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 17:03 - Feb 18 by hoopdog |
Simples mate
L R housing development would , no could ! go a long way toward paying for the intended new stadium certainly the L C |
Not sure that stacks up -
How can the Loftus Road site which is half the size of the nearby Linford Christie site be worth more than the Linford Christie site unless land value per hectare for LR is twice as much as the land value of the LC site (and that can’t be right).
A new stadium would be at a disadvantage to a refurbishment from the point of land acquisition unless the intention is that QPR sell Loftus Road and don’t own a new site. [Post edited 18 Feb 2020 18:15]
|  | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 19:10 - Feb 18 with 1859 views | kensalriser |
Any more mouldy old bones we can dig up and chew again?
Been a while since we had a Barton thread. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:31 - Feb 18 with 1744 views | QPR_Jim |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 17:53 - Feb 18 by Sir_Chops |
Not sure that stacks up -
How can the Loftus Road site which is half the size of the nearby Linford Christie site be worth more than the Linford Christie site unless land value per hectare for LR is twice as much as the land value of the LC site (and that can’t be right).
A new stadium would be at a disadvantage to a refurbishment from the point of land acquisition unless the intention is that QPR sell Loftus Road and don’t own a new site. [Post edited 18 Feb 2020 18:15]
|
I'd imagine that the land prices increase as you get closer to Shepherds Bush what with all the transport links etc and probably fall off out by the scrubs overlooking the prison, but I'm not an estate agent so could be wrong.
I think the club want a long lease on the site, similar to the deal with Warren Farm, but again just a guess.
What I would say is that the architects drawings look concept, if the club's done a feasibility on this then risks and buildability issues may have been raised. Just because an Architect has drawn it doesn't mean that it can be built or would be fit for purpose. |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:00 - Feb 19 with 1630 views | Clive_Anderson |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 17:53 - Feb 18 by Sir_Chops |
Not sure that stacks up -
How can the Loftus Road site which is half the size of the nearby Linford Christie site be worth more than the Linford Christie site unless land value per hectare for LR is twice as much as the land value of the LC site (and that can’t be right).
A new stadium would be at a disadvantage to a refurbishment from the point of land acquisition unless the intention is that QPR sell Loftus Road and don’t own a new site. [Post edited 18 Feb 2020 18:15]
|
Presumably the LC site doesn't have planning permission for housing. But if we moved to a new stadium then LR would have. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:52 - Feb 19 with 1611 views | Sir_Chops |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:00 - Feb 19 by Clive_Anderson |
Presumably the LC site doesn't have planning permission for housing. But if we moved to a new stadium then LR would have. |
Neither LR or LC site has planning permission for housing and planning permission would require the same change of use in both cases.
Haven’t the council publicly stated that they won’t sell LC to QPR (who they accused of being property developers) below market value? which one would presume is based upon the notion that the council may view one option for LC is housing and that they value it accordingly. [Post edited 19 Feb 2020 20:02]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:03 - Feb 19 with 1574 views | QPR_Jim |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:52 - Feb 19 by Sir_Chops |
Neither LR or LC site has planning permission for housing and planning permission would require the same change of use in both cases.
Haven’t the council publicly stated that they won’t sell LC to QPR (who they accused of being property developers) below market value? which one would presume is based upon the notion that the council may view one option for LC is housing and that they value it accordingly. [Post edited 19 Feb 2020 20:02]
|
The council put together a feasibility study for the site and looked at various options, none of which were housing.
Their comment about not giving us the site for free was in relation to a long lease similar to the agreement with Ealing for Warren Farm however they don't have the funds to build a stadium to then be our landlords. They don't even have the funds to maintain the running track that's there at the minute. So I suspect that they will have to compromise somewhere. | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 20:17 - Feb 21 with 1429 views | hoopdog |
Planing consent to develope L R for housing will get passed if QPR stay in the borough
or local , the council has already indicated that , when the cargaint was of interest .
With the housing crisis the way it is Ham and Fulham as everywhere else need housing .
And with the infestructure already in place at L R ie roads drainage makes it a more valuable site than L C on. Common land which would still be designated as sports use , which QPR won't be if they move to a site that meets the council's criteria | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 21:29 - Feb 21 with 1395 views | QPR_Jim |
You can keep posting that link but my answer remains the same. Just because an Architect has drawn it doesn't mean that it can be built or would be fit for purpose. | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 21:33 - Feb 21 with 1389 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
The roadblocks to a new stadium have been put there by the board because they refuse to give anything back to the community and just want to use us a vehicle for property development.
Millwall, Brentford, and Luton for all the sneering from the usual faces, are offering something in return for their new stadiums.
Our board are made up of greedy, unscrupulous, gentrifying, cnts. The likes of Jamie Reuben have shit all over London communities and have sucked the life out of areas and filled the void with soulless rabbit hutches that mostly remain unlived in by foreign investors and un affordable by locals
I’m just going to resurface this, where H&F were very clear about what QPR FC need to do to gain planning permission.
“QPR’s proposals are less about keeping football in the borough — and much more about them playing property developer in White City.
“The Council is a trustee of the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust. And as a trustee we can’t just give away over one hundred million pounds worth of land to QPR’s multi-millionaire owners. Linford Christie Stadium is a vital community asset in an open green space. We want to protect and enhance its use for the environment, athletics, recreation and the long-term benefit of all our residents. We will consult residents early next year about how we can best achieve this.
"The Council is very proud to have QPR in our borough and has long made it clear to their owners and executive team that we will go out of our way to help QPR improve their current stadium or will work with them to look at other alternatives. However, we cannot just give away land for free or hand land to QPR’s owners well below its potential value — and just because QPR’s owners have decided to campaign for the council to do that. We believe QPR deserves to be invested in and call on its owners to do just that.
"We’d be interested in discussing with QPR’s owners the idea that they give up some ownership of the club to ensure the community and QPR’s fans have a greater voice in the club’s future."
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2018/11/statement-responding-queens-park-r [Post edited 21 Feb 2020 21:43]
|  | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 13:29 - Feb 22 with 1318 views | hoopdog |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 21:33 - Feb 21 by BazzaInTheLoft |
The roadblocks to a new stadium have been put there by the board because they refuse to give anything back to the community and just want to use us a vehicle for property development.
Millwall, Brentford, and Luton for all the sneering from the usual faces, are offering something in return for their new stadiums.
Our board are made up of greedy, unscrupulous, gentrifying, cnts. The likes of Jamie Reuben have shit all over London communities and have sucked the life out of areas and filled the void with soulless rabbit hutches that mostly remain unlived in by foreign investors and un affordable by locals
I’m just going to resurface this, where H&F were very clear about what QPR FC need to do to gain planning permission.
“QPR’s proposals are less about keeping football in the borough — and much more about them playing property developer in White City.
“The Council is a trustee of the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust. And as a trustee we can’t just give away over one hundred million pounds worth of land to QPR’s multi-millionaire owners. Linford Christie Stadium is a vital community asset in an open green space. We want to protect and enhance its use for the environment, athletics, recreation and the long-term benefit of all our residents. We will consult residents early next year about how we can best achieve this.
"The Council is very proud to have QPR in our borough and has long made it clear to their owners and executive team that we will go out of our way to help QPR improve their current stadium or will work with them to look at other alternatives. However, we cannot just give away land for free or hand land to QPR’s owners well below its potential value — and just because QPR’s owners have decided to campaign for the council to do that. We believe QPR deserves to be invested in and call on its owners to do just that.
"We’d be interested in discussing with QPR’s owners the idea that they give up some ownership of the club to ensure the community and QPR’s fans have a greater voice in the club’s future."
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2018/11/statement-responding-queens-park-r [Post edited 21 Feb 2020 21:43]
|
Must admit that's the way I see it ,and have for sometime unfortunately | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 10:48 - Feb 23 with 1274 views | TGRRRSSS |
SO basically we know TF and co will never build WF and will never build a new ground.
Even Hoos I notice has gone quiet the past year on all off it when in the past he was shouting from the roof tops about the need for both.
Do they think fans are stupid or I guess as it often the case they don't really care. |  | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 12:08 - Feb 23 with 1249 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 10:48 - Feb 23 by TGRRRSSS |
SO basically we know TF and co will never build WF and will never build a new ground.
Even Hoos I notice has gone quiet the past year on all off it when in the past he was shouting from the roof tops about the need for both.
Do they think fans are stupid or I guess as it often the case they don't really care. |
They might build it, but only if it gives them a few quid from private property not connected with QPR.
When we was in the Premiership, the free advertisement of Tune Group products in Malaysia was the main motivation for ownership. Now it’s West London land prices. It was never football, except maybe to satisfy some egotism.
We as fans need to organise for the eventuality that we receive a proper good shafting, either with our ground being sold off or heaven forbid a MK Dons sort of situation.
Should be the LSA’s job but I’ve not really heard any demands from them. I completely forgot my membership run out such is the lack of presence they have . | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 12:27 - Feb 23 with 1237 views | R_from_afar |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 10:48 - Feb 23 by TGRRRSSS |
SO basically we know TF and co will never build WF and will never build a new ground.
Even Hoos I notice has gone quiet the past year on all off it when in the past he was shouting from the roof tops about the need for both.
Do they think fans are stupid or I guess as it often the case they don't really care. |
I agree with you that a new stadium is years away, quite easily over 10, but I still think there is a chance that WF will happen. We may not have spent anything on actual construction work yet but the club has had to pay for surveys, legal stuff and other administrative things.
Still hugely frustrating that neither project has actually got to the "commit" stage yet, though. |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 13:30 - Feb 23 with 1201 views | QPR_Jim |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 21:33 - Feb 21 by BazzaInTheLoft |
The roadblocks to a new stadium have been put there by the board because they refuse to give anything back to the community and just want to use us a vehicle for property development.
Millwall, Brentford, and Luton for all the sneering from the usual faces, are offering something in return for their new stadiums.
Our board are made up of greedy, unscrupulous, gentrifying, cnts. The likes of Jamie Reuben have shit all over London communities and have sucked the life out of areas and filled the void with soulless rabbit hutches that mostly remain unlived in by foreign investors and un affordable by locals
I’m just going to resurface this, where H&F were very clear about what QPR FC need to do to gain planning permission.
“QPR’s proposals are less about keeping football in the borough — and much more about them playing property developer in White City.
“The Council is a trustee of the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust. And as a trustee we can’t just give away over one hundred million pounds worth of land to QPR’s multi-millionaire owners. Linford Christie Stadium is a vital community asset in an open green space. We want to protect and enhance its use for the environment, athletics, recreation and the long-term benefit of all our residents. We will consult residents early next year about how we can best achieve this.
"The Council is very proud to have QPR in our borough and has long made it clear to their owners and executive team that we will go out of our way to help QPR improve their current stadium or will work with them to look at other alternatives. However, we cannot just give away land for free or hand land to QPR’s owners well below its potential value — and just because QPR’s owners have decided to campaign for the council to do that. We believe QPR deserves to be invested in and call on its owners to do just that.
"We’d be interested in discussing with QPR’s owners the idea that they give up some ownership of the club to ensure the community and QPR’s fans have a greater voice in the club’s future."
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2018/11/statement-responding-queens-park-r [Post edited 21 Feb 2020 21:43]
|
You may be right about the owners, I don't know definitively but I hope you're wrong.
With LBHF their solution if I'm not mistaken is for them to build a stadium (presumably to their own spec) and have us as tenants. This to me shows that they've not been listening as it would be a bad solution with regards to FFP especially if we're only getting use on matchday.
The fact that our owners have tried to avoid this tells me that it's not just about developing Lotus Road into housing because if that was their criteria then the LBHF proposal would do that without the club needing to spend on building a new stadium. So they would have bitten their hand off, as it is they haven't.
So surely, unless I'm missing something, it's not just about getting money from building houses on LR. | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 13:53 - Feb 23 with 1185 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 13:30 - Feb 23 by QPR_Jim |
You may be right about the owners, I don't know definitively but I hope you're wrong.
With LBHF their solution if I'm not mistaken is for them to build a stadium (presumably to their own spec) and have us as tenants. This to me shows that they've not been listening as it would be a bad solution with regards to FFP especially if we're only getting use on matchday.
The fact that our owners have tried to avoid this tells me that it's not just about developing Lotus Road into housing because if that was their criteria then the LBHF proposal would do that without the club needing to spend on building a new stadium. So they would have bitten their hand off, as it is they haven't.
So surely, unless I'm missing something, it's not just about getting money from building houses on LR. |
This is news to me. I've not read anywhere about LBHF proposing a council owned stadium.
I hope I am wrong too, but I have no idea what else property tycoons offer us or the directorship.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/the-reuben-show-the-hottest-property-tycoon | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:03 - Feb 23 with 1178 views | QPR_Jim |
Stephen Cowan - LBHF
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/qpr-premier
That seems to be their preference whilst claiming we're owned by billionaires in one statement then questioning how we'd fund the stadium in the next.
Claiming they can't gift us the land (not that us building a stadium on their land with our money is a gift) but they can afford to build it themselves in the same statement.
They don't seem to know what they want tbh. | | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:42 - Feb 23 with 1152 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:03 - Feb 23 by QPR_Jim |
Stephen Cowan - LBHF
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/qpr-premier
That seems to be their preference whilst claiming we're owned by billionaires in one statement then questioning how we'd fund the stadium in the next.
Claiming they can't gift us the land (not that us building a stadium on their land with our money is a gift) but they can afford to build it themselves in the same statement.
They don't seem to know what they want tbh. |
Fair enough. I'd not seen that. Bear in mind he is right in what he says though, they have bent over backwards for Fulham and Chelsea, both owned by multi billionaires.
I think the council has been very clear: Integrate more with the community and give something back. More telling is his belief that our board don't want to cough up.
For the record i'm not talking about the exceptional Grenfell and QPR in the Community work. I'm talking long term infrastructure, engagement, and ownership. [Post edited 23 Feb 2020 14:47]
| | | |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 07:39 - Feb 24 with 1061 views | QPR_Jim |
| Okay now you're taking the p*ss on 14:42 - Feb 23 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Fair enough. I'd not seen that. Bear in mind he is right in what he says though, they have bent over backwards for Fulham and Chelsea, both owned by multi billionaires.
I think the council has been very clear: Integrate more with the community and give something back. More telling is his belief that our board don't want to cough up.
For the record i'm not talking about the exceptional Grenfell and QPR in the Community work. I'm talking long term infrastructure, engagement, and ownership. [Post edited 23 Feb 2020 14:47]
|
Not to forget the support for the Kiyan Prince Foundation.
I'm not sure what it is you would have the club do. You mention ownership and I suspect that part of it would be to have some of the club gifted to supporters. But even though I agree with fans being involved and on the board of clubs I don't think that a local council should impose that on a club in exchange for support in building a new stadium. It should be brought in at a high level so all club's do it rather than being imposed on one or two clubs.
It's ok to say that we're not talking about all the good work the club does do, but the council need to understand that if we leave the borough then that's not likely to continue. If we have a new stadium in the borough then QPR in the community would have a better base and probably be able to do even more. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
