| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? 10:32 - Nov 9 with 7999 views | BrisbaneR |
I've no wish to distract from the discussion of our recent improvement in form, and this shouldn't at all - I'm just keen to hear your views given the volume of support I heard from the other side of the planet last night.
The City game in particular made me think of the old 'extra man in the stands' cliché, and the look of wonder/terror on the faces of visiting superstars who haven't played in a pokey little ground like Loftus Rd before was a joy to behold.
TF wants Rangers to be a 'global' brand - well perhaps our selling point, the differentiator, should be that we're the club where football looks and sounds like it used to? Rather than just being spectators, the intimacy of Loftus Rd means the pitch is surrounded by 18000 participants. Can we be the West London team that people think of when they imagine the atmosphere of a football match as it used to be....rather than sitting in a 'library' like that mob in SW6, waiting for an 'inevitable' win and being bored because of that inevitability?
I know and understand the arguments for a move to a new ground, but we need to be careful what we wish for. I'd happily stay small and intimate rather than growing but losing what I saw and heard against City. BTW, the support at Chelsea brought a lump to my throat even at this distance - you lot make me proud...COYR's.... |  | | |  |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 22:25 - Nov 9 with 1666 views | benbu |
Everyone will miss loftus road should we leave. The place holds so many memories for thousands of RS fans and for generations. The atmosphere can be fantastic and under the lights like the recent city game it's fantastic.
I would be interested in what they could do to redevelop the stadium (and ground share with fulham for 2 years) but I think they will be very restricted to actually build anything with the houses surrounding the stadium. The revenue they can generate by moving would be much more higher than staying and I think the financial side of things will be deciding factor for the club
I work on the olympic stadium converting it for west ham in 2 years and the hospitality and facilities will be first class (although only 16 boxes!) lots of their fans don't want to leave Upton park for similar reasons as us leaving loftus road but once they see the place it will be a million miles better than what they have now.
I would rather we stay but can see us moving at some point in time |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 22:33 - Nov 9 with 1659 views | WeaverQPR |
Tony champions league qpr are massive Fernandes will not rest until we are playing in a half empty 40k stadium and teetering on the brink of the financial bankruptcy. |  |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 11:40 - Nov 10 with 1565 views | Cliff |
I don't want to leave LR but....
The facilities are poor, I'm 6 foot and it's it's extremely uncomfortable to sit in for 90 minutes, and holding only 18k it allows the club to charge excessively high ticket prices and still just about fill the ground. Also I buy my drinks and food outside of the ground, I sit in Ellerslie Road and the facilities are crap. When the kids were younger and wanted hot chocolate at halftime on cold days I used to leave my seat with a minute or two left to play and would still miss the start of the second half more often than not. There is also no reason why a new stadium cannot be built with the fans as close to the pitch and still hold more seats.
So although I love LR it is falling to bits and something needs to change, and a new stadium would mean better facilities and a chance to actually buy something within the ground, more comfort, bigger crowds with cheaper prices, and hopefully no loss of atmosphere. |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 11:57 - Nov 10 with 1547 views | Clive_Anderson |
Is this the right place to bring up what a complete idiot Chris Wright was for not taking the land behind the School End for practically nothing in the 90s?
Well in that case the man was a complete and utter fool and he's caused us massive problems that we may never get to resolve. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 12:02 - Nov 10 with 1537 views | Jamie |
Fernandes does. And that's all the matters. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 12:09 - Nov 10 with 1534 views | ElHoop |
I don't think that any QPR fan WANTS to leave Loftus Road but realistically we have to go if we want a better ground. To make Loftus Road a comfortable place you'd have to reduce capacity and make it more of the sort of club that Flavio seemed to want to create. It seems impossible to make a much bigger ground at Loftus Road. There's already too many seats for the available space. Unlike clubs in other towns or cities, there's not many options as to where can move to either - we can't go 'out of town' as it's too far. So if an opportunity to move does come up, we have to make the best of it as we have the future as well as the present of the club to think about. A move has its risks but I think that those risks are greater if we stay. |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 12:22 - Nov 10 with 1524 views | paulparker |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 11:57 - Nov 10 by Clive_Anderson |
Is this the right place to bring up what a complete idiot Chris Wright was for not taking the land behind the School End for practically nothing in the 90s?
Well in that case the man was a complete and utter fool and he's caused us massive problems that we may never get to resolve. |
Yep the Chris Wright Tenure was one of the worst things to ever hit this club
Poor players signed
Floating us on the stock market
sharing with Wasps
terrible managerial appointments
merging with Wimbledon
But not securing the land behind the school end tops the lot , what a class A prat,
all we need is another 5-6k tops to have a stadium to suit us and that could have provided it, |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 12:44 - Nov 10 with 1502 views | PinnerPaul |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 11:18 - Nov 9 by bosh67 |
Personally I think Loftus Road is our spiritual home. I can't see the need for a ground that holds more than 25,000 people, we'd never fill it. Given technology and building I think there are a multitude of ways to redevelop the ground without increasing the footprint.
Putting on a new roof that allows more seating, taking out the boxes in SAR and returning that to seating. returning the W12 area to seating, Putting the boxes in the corner of the ground or incorporating them into a new generation roof would all be possible.
Waiting for safe standing to return and putting that in the lower Loft and school ends, all would increase the capacity safely.
Readdressing infrastructure behind the Elleslie Road stand so that the SAR stand could house more people, so splitting the offices etc down between the two sides. Building more infrastructure sub ground level in the stands for this to increase the seating areas. It's all possible and at a far lesser cost than developing an entire new area.
If Rangers want to expand the footprint they would do better to buy land and housing in the area, or work with the council to regenerate the immediate area. It's well served by stations and shopping centres, so for me, why move when with imagination and clever design, Loftus Road could actually be redeveloped as a hub for the area, without the stadium footprint expanding.
Remember we did have 33,000+ in the same area back in the 70s so a safe 25,000 can't be beyond the realms of possibility.
If the club needs more revenue, set up franchise offshoot QPR teams in the MLS, Malaysian and Indian leagues. Build the 'brand' by having the QPR brand playing in other non competitive territories and grow an academy around that principal.
So for me, no we shouldn't leave. |
Really good options Bosh, its what's needed to have any chance of staying at LR.
"Spiritual home"; "special atmosphere" et etc just doesn't cut it , sadly, in the modern £s driven world. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 13:01 - Nov 10 with 1487 views | nadera78 |
Removing the tier of boxes and putting seats back in would be expensive but give us another couple of thousand seats. Removing the SAR roof (and the stanchions) and putting a tier of boxes there would mean you don't lose the income they provide.
Purchasing a couple of houses on Ellerslie Rd - not all of them by any means, just 3 or 4 - would mean you could increase the entry/exit points and build new toilets and a bar.
Returning the Lower Loft to terracing (and I do think this is becoming more of a possibility in years to come) would give us another 1,000 plus.
And if the club wants to increase match day spend - pre and post match - then they could buy a couple of the pubs in the Bush.
Buying the small block of shops and flats next to the Springbok would mean you could move the offices there, freeing up space in SAR for another bar or restaurant.
If the question is "what's best for QPR?" then the answer is to redevelop Loftus Rd to circa 25,000 capacity.
If the question is "what's best for the shareholders?" then the answer is to move to Old Oak and build 25,000 residential units. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:07 - Nov 10 with 1442 views | 08olesen |
It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to buy the flats around LR and then expand the stadium, compared to redeveloping the whole of Old Oak.
I actually think the council would give us planning for it through a CPO because it would complete the development of the westfield area, but its just the problem of moving people out of their homes which i'm not for. Having said that though i do love LR and i think a 35k stadium is way overstating our regular fan base, so just expanding it by 10k to 28 would be good. |  |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:13 - Nov 10 with 1437 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 12:22 - Nov 10 by paulparker |
Yep the Chris Wright Tenure was one of the worst things to ever hit this club
Poor players signed
Floating us on the stock market
sharing with Wasps
terrible managerial appointments
merging with Wimbledon
But not securing the land behind the school end tops the lot , what a class A prat,
all we need is another 5-6k tops to have a stadium to suit us and that could have provided it, |
What the f@ck was he thinking? Even if we had just kept the land for a while we would have made a massive profit on it. It's got to be the most stupid decision in the history of the club and yes that even includes Alan Mullery.
I hated Richard Thompson, but there's no way he would have passed up the chance of getting that land. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:20 - Nov 10 with 1433 views | Juzzie |
To echo others on here, I don't think any QPR fan WANTS to leave but we may well HAVE to leave as it's just not up to modern standards anymore. Not even Championship level let alone the PL. Not just in terms of seating or capacity but all the background stuff like dressing rooms, media areas, catering, corportate functions on matchday (big money spinner) etc etc. I've been on the stadium tour and we are woefully behind.
Any new ground simply must incorporate what makes LR so special on days like we had against Man City the other night and many other notable games otherwise it'll just be pointless and another souless bowl where Row A is 25 yards from the touchline. |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:23 - Nov 10 with 1426 views | CamberleyR |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 13:01 - Nov 10 by nadera78 |
Removing the tier of boxes and putting seats back in would be expensive but give us another couple of thousand seats. Removing the SAR roof (and the stanchions) and putting a tier of boxes there would mean you don't lose the income they provide.
Purchasing a couple of houses on Ellerslie Rd - not all of them by any means, just 3 or 4 - would mean you could increase the entry/exit points and build new toilets and a bar.
Returning the Lower Loft to terracing (and I do think this is becoming more of a possibility in years to come) would give us another 1,000 plus.
And if the club wants to increase match day spend - pre and post match - then they could buy a couple of the pubs in the Bush.
Buying the small block of shops and flats next to the Springbok would mean you could move the offices there, freeing up space in SAR for another bar or restaurant.
If the question is "what's best for QPR?" then the answer is to redevelop Loftus Rd to circa 25,000 capacity.
If the question is "what's best for the shareholders?" then the answer is to move to Old Oak and build 25,000 residential units. |
Doing all of that won't get you another 7000 seats IMO. Let's say for simplicity a 25000 stadium would have the two stands flanking the touchlines holding 15000 seats between them and the two stands behind the goals 10000.
To get seating in rebuilt stands with what I would consider "normal" legroom would mean the stadium having a bigger footprint. Ellerslie may just about be do-able as a rebuilt 6000 capacity stand but I just can't see how SAR could be rebuilt to hold 9000 and the Loft and School ends rebuilt to hold 5000 each.
Even if that were possible and a 25,000 capacity stadium suddenly emerged on the current site, there would be absolutely no scope to extend if need arose. |  |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:25 - Nov 10 with 1422 views | Juzzie |
Also, "just buy the Ellerslie Road and Loftus Road houses". As easy as that? There must be 150-200 properties there as lots of them are flats. The logistics and timescales would be astronomical, not to mention the costs. If each flat has an average value of £350k (probably more then you'd have to offer a lot more than market value to entice people to sell up) that's £70-80million just to buy the houses, probably a fith of the total cost of a new stadium then you have all the demolition costs and the huge disruptions caused by lorries, cranes, etc.
Completely impractical to do.
[Post edited 10 Nov 2014 14:29]
| | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:26 - Nov 10 with 1421 views | Clive_Anderson |
What was the capacity when the lower tiers of three sides of the ground were terraces? Remove the executive boxes as suggested above and extend the Paddocks to fill the space and you're probably looking at around 25,000.
The atmosphere would be absolutely electric as well. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:32 - Nov 10 with 1365 views | daveB |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 11:18 - Nov 9 by bosh67 |
Personally I think Loftus Road is our spiritual home. I can't see the need for a ground that holds more than 25,000 people, we'd never fill it. Given technology and building I think there are a multitude of ways to redevelop the ground without increasing the footprint.
Putting on a new roof that allows more seating, taking out the boxes in SAR and returning that to seating. returning the W12 area to seating, Putting the boxes in the corner of the ground or incorporating them into a new generation roof would all be possible.
Waiting for safe standing to return and putting that in the lower Loft and school ends, all would increase the capacity safely.
Readdressing infrastructure behind the Elleslie Road stand so that the SAR stand could house more people, so splitting the offices etc down between the two sides. Building more infrastructure sub ground level in the stands for this to increase the seating areas. It's all possible and at a far lesser cost than developing an entire new area.
If Rangers want to expand the footprint they would do better to buy land and housing in the area, or work with the council to regenerate the immediate area. It's well served by stations and shopping centres, so for me, why move when with imagination and clever design, Loftus Road could actually be redeveloped as a hub for the area, without the stadium footprint expanding.
Remember we did have 33,000+ in the same area back in the 70s so a safe 25,000 can't be beyond the realms of possibility.
If the club needs more revenue, set up franchise offshoot QPR teams in the MLS, Malaysian and Indian leagues. Build the 'brand' by having the QPR brand playing in other non competitive territories and grow an academy around that principal.
So for me, no we shouldn't leave. |
brilliant post that, I'd love us to redevelop Loftus road and stay but sadly it won't happen. We'll either move to Old Oak or stay as we are. I don't see us ever having the brains or the willpower to do anything at Loftus Road |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 14:35 - Nov 10 with 1360 views | Toast_R |
Unless they could bring back terraces then I'd have to vote in favour of a move. The seats are impossible if you are over 6ft. I've sat in every stand.
South Africa Road = Absolutely No chance
Lower Loft = Forget About it
Upper Loft = Unless your in a block where everyone stands it's Doable but your wedged in and if you have the obligatory FB on either side, you'll need physio to un-trap several nerves and get blood circulation going again after a whole match.
Ellerslie - See Upper Loft for seating
School End - See Lower Loft.
Paddocks - See Lower Loft
The main sticking point however is not the fans welfare, it's the corporate facilities which need improving as this is where the money lies. |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 17:31 - Nov 10 with 1286 views | themodfather |
we have few facilities at qpr due to lack of space.
SAR lost its members bar cos we are nothing and corporate rules, they cough up more so are all the club ant.
i'm dubious of willsden junction, north west london...we won't be west london, whatever our previous ground history, we will not be "west london is ours" anymore.
for all the surveys and whatever, th club have failed to show us fans any images of what the new ground will look like...it can't be hard, after years of discussion, to have had designers produce a number of possible designs...square, open sided, round, bowl
then all single tier...2 tier..any features in design....but any new ground is more for one direction than qpr fans, we;ll be the nuisance every 10 days or so. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 19:19 - Nov 10 with 1253 views | Ingham |
I think the stay/don't stay positions - like so many apparently opposed viewpoints among Rs - are not the opposite poles they seem.
The key is the football.
By all means, let us play in a 40,000, 60,000 or 80,000 capacity stadium. Whatever size our support is. When we have 40,000, 60,000, or 80,000 supporters, we'll need a ground of that size.
That is what Arsenal did. 45,000 season tickets, 15,000 on the waiting list, their new ground accommodates not one single supporter more than they knew they would get every week. And they are Arsenal. 13 or so titles, a title in every complete decade except one since the 1930s, and a permanent resident of the Champions League positions in the Premiership since it was founded.
I reckon our historic average attendance is about 13,000. Arsenal, United, Chelsea, City all have grounds smaller than their record attendances of old. That should give us pause for thought. Serious thought.
In the case of the two most serious contenders for the title - Chelsea and City - their grounds are not much more than half the size of their 82,000 and 84,000 records.
So by all means let the developers build Old Oak.
When we have a big enough game to need 40,000 seats, hire Old Oak for the game. If our football is vastly better than that of our 1976 side, which could only manage 30,000 on the day we might have won the title (our final game against Leeds, had Liverpool lost against Stoke) ... ... then we can take the ground on a season by season basis, see if it is suitable, if we can afford it, if we DO get the required attendances, and so on.
And keep Loftus Road until we ARE that good.
When we moved to White City - both times - we kept Loftus Road. Just as well. We moved without the earning power, the spending power, the infrastructure, the support, the quality players, the track record, know-how or experience. We imagined a larger building would bring the crowds flocking.
Only better football and results will do that.
Running up losses of £178 million did not give us a team to rival Chelsea and City. Abramovich appoints managers who have won the Premiership, the Champions League, the World Cup.
We appoint managers who've won nothing of the kind.
Mittal is in the same class, wealth-wise, as Abramovich and Mansour. So, fine. When we sign the kind of players they routinely sign, appoint the class of managers they routinely appoint, and win the titles they challenge for and occasionally even win (neither of them has got anywhere near the Ferguson-era mastery of the Premier League even now), then we will have what it takes.
Chelsea and City don't have the earning power of United (the gap between their stadium size (and that of Arsenal's when they were actually winning things) and United's is far greater than the gap between ours and either City's or Chelsea's.
So let's close that gap between our on-field performances and those of City and Chelsea, just as City and Chelsea closed the gap in current performances between themselves and United - without moving to an 80,000 or 100,000 capacity stadium.
These are the two routes to making the Club more successful, increasing its support, and justifying a bigger ground.
Sheer genius - of the Ramsey, Boot Room, Clough & Taylor kind, which was vanquished at smaller Clubs when the Premier League came along - or sheer spending power.
Small and medium sized Clubs challenged the top Clubs once upon a time. That has now ceased. There are no more title winners like Burnley or Ipswich, Forest or Derby, no near misses like QPR, Southampton, Norwich or West Ham.
But there is no objection to starting with the football whatever happens. We will never fill significantly more seats without extraordinarily high-quality football, all the time, to the highest standard. A hard core will come all the time. Others come for the good times. As we know with our attendances at Wembley Finals. The odds in favour of success are much higher than over a whole season, and the dedication required is slight compared to those who come for decades even when we struggle for decades.
That is the difficult thing to overcome. No small Club has ever done it. Even Ipswich, who finished in 'champions league' places for 10 seasons in a row (apart from one year) under Bobby Robson, never stopped being a small Club, any more than we did in the 1970s.
I'm sure it can be done. But we'll need to have the brilliance of Clough & Taylor at turning modest sized Clubs around, and the brilliance of the Boot Room at creating long term dominance (and without being at the biggest, wealthiest Club), although Liverpool were a big Club, if not of the order of post-Munich United.
Years ago, people said smaller Clubs didn't have the money. Then the Premiership came along, and Clubs like ours get £60 million a year just for running out on the pitch. To date, that's about all they've done, apart from Hughes's brief run of 5 home wins, and our recent improvement in form.
Being realistic doesn't mean being losers rather than winners. It's just that winners know the difference. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 19:40 - Nov 10 with 1245 views | richranger |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 19:19 - Nov 10 by Ingham |
I think the stay/don't stay positions - like so many apparently opposed viewpoints among Rs - are not the opposite poles they seem.
The key is the football.
By all means, let us play in a 40,000, 60,000 or 80,000 capacity stadium. Whatever size our support is. When we have 40,000, 60,000, or 80,000 supporters, we'll need a ground of that size.
That is what Arsenal did. 45,000 season tickets, 15,000 on the waiting list, their new ground accommodates not one single supporter more than they knew they would get every week. And they are Arsenal. 13 or so titles, a title in every complete decade except one since the 1930s, and a permanent resident of the Champions League positions in the Premiership since it was founded.
I reckon our historic average attendance is about 13,000. Arsenal, United, Chelsea, City all have grounds smaller than their record attendances of old. That should give us pause for thought. Serious thought.
In the case of the two most serious contenders for the title - Chelsea and City - their grounds are not much more than half the size of their 82,000 and 84,000 records.
So by all means let the developers build Old Oak.
When we have a big enough game to need 40,000 seats, hire Old Oak for the game. If our football is vastly better than that of our 1976 side, which could only manage 30,000 on the day we might have won the title (our final game against Leeds, had Liverpool lost against Stoke) ... ... then we can take the ground on a season by season basis, see if it is suitable, if we can afford it, if we DO get the required attendances, and so on.
And keep Loftus Road until we ARE that good.
When we moved to White City - both times - we kept Loftus Road. Just as well. We moved without the earning power, the spending power, the infrastructure, the support, the quality players, the track record, know-how or experience. We imagined a larger building would bring the crowds flocking.
Only better football and results will do that.
Running up losses of £178 million did not give us a team to rival Chelsea and City. Abramovich appoints managers who have won the Premiership, the Champions League, the World Cup.
We appoint managers who've won nothing of the kind.
Mittal is in the same class, wealth-wise, as Abramovich and Mansour. So, fine. When we sign the kind of players they routinely sign, appoint the class of managers they routinely appoint, and win the titles they challenge for and occasionally even win (neither of them has got anywhere near the Ferguson-era mastery of the Premier League even now), then we will have what it takes.
Chelsea and City don't have the earning power of United (the gap between their stadium size (and that of Arsenal's when they were actually winning things) and United's is far greater than the gap between ours and either City's or Chelsea's.
So let's close that gap between our on-field performances and those of City and Chelsea, just as City and Chelsea closed the gap in current performances between themselves and United - without moving to an 80,000 or 100,000 capacity stadium.
These are the two routes to making the Club more successful, increasing its support, and justifying a bigger ground.
Sheer genius - of the Ramsey, Boot Room, Clough & Taylor kind, which was vanquished at smaller Clubs when the Premier League came along - or sheer spending power.
Small and medium sized Clubs challenged the top Clubs once upon a time. That has now ceased. There are no more title winners like Burnley or Ipswich, Forest or Derby, no near misses like QPR, Southampton, Norwich or West Ham.
But there is no objection to starting with the football whatever happens. We will never fill significantly more seats without extraordinarily high-quality football, all the time, to the highest standard. A hard core will come all the time. Others come for the good times. As we know with our attendances at Wembley Finals. The odds in favour of success are much higher than over a whole season, and the dedication required is slight compared to those who come for decades even when we struggle for decades.
That is the difficult thing to overcome. No small Club has ever done it. Even Ipswich, who finished in 'champions league' places for 10 seasons in a row (apart from one year) under Bobby Robson, never stopped being a small Club, any more than we did in the 1970s.
I'm sure it can be done. But we'll need to have the brilliance of Clough & Taylor at turning modest sized Clubs around, and the brilliance of the Boot Room at creating long term dominance (and without being at the biggest, wealthiest Club), although Liverpool were a big Club, if not of the order of post-Munich United.
Years ago, people said smaller Clubs didn't have the money. Then the Premiership came along, and Clubs like ours get £60 million a year just for running out on the pitch. To date, that's about all they've done, apart from Hughes's brief run of 5 home wins, and our recent improvement in form.
Being realistic doesn't mean being losers rather than winners. It's just that winners know the difference. |
We played in a bigger stadium for a while - White City. Trouble is though, less people went to matches there than went to Loftus Road! I think at one point attendences fell to less than 5,000 - in a stadium that held 60,000! And that at a stadium literally just down the road. A bigger stadium doesn't always mean bigger crowds. | | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 19:45 - Nov 10 with 1242 views | WeaverQPR |
If we was moving to a 25-30k compact stadium i could live with that, its the fact we are going OTT with 40k | |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 20:54 - Nov 10 with 1210 views | THEBUSH |
Whatever happens, whether we stay or go, we have to have a seating capacity of a minimum of 25,000, with decent leg room.
I'd prefer to stay, but don't think the above can be achieved, if we stay at LR. |  | | |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 21:31 - Nov 10 with 1186 views | kysersosaqpr |
I do! 6'4'' reasons why. And that the facilities are sh.t. And that as we go forward we need more supporters to have any chance to keep up with the many, many clubs that are expanding and upping their capacities.
And as for us going bankrupt, errr we were going bankrupt until TF stepped in.
Also our fan base has moved - I went to wet spam with a friend who said none of their supporters live within three miles of the ground now. How many of our fans live within a mile - and in a few years three miles? | |
| The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 22:38 - Nov 10 with 1160 views | FredManRave |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 18:31 - Nov 9 by LowerloftLad |
Were not a big club so we don't need a big ground simples |
Yes but we do need big club refereeing decisions... |  |
| |
| Who WANTS to leave Loftus Rd? on 23:21 - Nov 10 with 1135 views | LowerloftLad |
Why should we look to move we didnt even get the smallest attendance in the premier league this weekend ????? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
