| Fans forum minutes on 03:28 - Nov 23 with 3472 views | timcocking |
"Criticism from one of the fans about our being 'negative''" ?!
Amazing. Even after the worst start in QPR history, MaClaren had us pretty much playing with four attackers. They must wonder what the hell they have to do to keep people happy. [Post edited 23 Nov 2018 4:31]
|  | |  |
| Fans forum minutes on 08:37 - Nov 23 with 3261 views | londonscottish |
| Fans forum minutes on 03:28 - Nov 23 by timcocking |
"Criticism from one of the fans about our being 'negative''" ?!
Amazing. Even after the worst start in QPR history, MaClaren had us pretty much playing with four attackers. They must wonder what the hell they have to do to keep people happy. [Post edited 23 Nov 2018 4:31]
|
McClaren looked a bit irritated but then took a deep breath and defended himself well.
If nothing else he's pretty level headed and obviously has an encylopaedic knowledge of coaching and tactics. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 09:27 - Nov 23 with 3157 views | Gloucs_R |
LCS is not going to happen. I would rather them be talking about alternatives, even if that does mean leaving W12. The longer we leave it, the higher prices go up for alternatives. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 10:13 - Nov 23 with 3060 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Fans forum minutes on 09:27 - Nov 23 by Gloucs_R |
LCS is not going to happen. I would rather them be talking about alternatives, even if that does mean leaving W12. The longer we leave it, the higher prices go up for alternatives. |
Well yes if we’re going to be forced into a bidding war with the construnction industry gestapo, I agree. We’ve got no chance of getting LCS. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:05 - Nov 23 with 2936 views | CroydonCaptJack |
Except that land prices are not going up at the moment |  | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:07 - Nov 23 with 2925 views | kensalriser |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:05 - Nov 23 by CroydonCaptJack |
Except that land prices are not going up at the moment |
Just wait for the post-Brexit crash. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:43 - Nov 23 with 2836 views | stevec |
I'm a bit confused. Are Rangers looking to build residential development on the LCS site, first I've heard of it, and if we're not what the hell are H & F sounding off about the owners being more interested in making money than providing a football stadium? Whatever we build in terms of football facilities I can't see the owners personally making much out of it.
I do hope this is not some left wing Labour Council bringing their petty political dogma to the table. |  | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 12:15 - Nov 23 with 2769 views | londonscottish |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:43 - Nov 23 by stevec |
I'm a bit confused. Are Rangers looking to build residential development on the LCS site, first I've heard of it, and if we're not what the hell are H & F sounding off about the owners being more interested in making money than providing a football stadium? Whatever we build in terms of football facilities I can't see the owners personally making much out of it.
I do hope this is not some left wing Labour Council bringing their petty political dogma to the table. |
It has all the hallmarks of a right-on council person looking at evil Mr Big Businessman and getting all indignant.
Conveniently forgetting where all the tax moment comes from in the first place. Usual bollx. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fans forum minutes on 12:50 - Nov 23 with 2694 views | Northernr |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:43 - Nov 23 by stevec |
I'm a bit confused. Are Rangers looking to build residential development on the LCS site, first I've heard of it, and if we're not what the hell are H & F sounding off about the owners being more interested in making money than providing a football stadium? Whatever we build in terms of football facilities I can't see the owners personally making much out of it.
I do hope this is not some left wing Labour Council bringing their petty political dogma to the table. |
I think their point is (and I might be wrong because that statement is very odd) that they can’t give public land to QPR for nothing so we can build a new stadium and then make a tonne of money from the residential development of Loftus Road. That’s the ‘property developer’ but I think. |  | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 12:54 - Nov 23 with 2673 views | daveB |
| Fans forum minutes on 11:43 - Nov 23 by stevec |
I'm a bit confused. Are Rangers looking to build residential development on the LCS site, first I've heard of it, and if we're not what the hell are H & F sounding off about the owners being more interested in making money than providing a football stadium? Whatever we build in terms of football facilities I can't see the owners personally making much out of it.
I do hope this is not some left wing Labour Council bringing their petty political dogma to the table. |
You have to see it from the councils point of view.
We have billionaire owners who tried to bully their way to Old Oak, very little of that was for the good of QPR more trying to get involved in a massive development, at the moment the club are involved in building houses in that area.
Now we are saying we want to build a community stadium for the good of the local area the council have every right to be a bit skeptical about it and want assurances this isn't bullshit before handing over prime land.
The owners won't make anything out of a new stadium but could make a lot out of the housing at Loftus Road
The club would be better off imo having the Community Trust push the clubs agenda on this rather than a group of fans who have the right intentions but not sure they should be tasked with this. |  | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:06 - Nov 23 with 2634 views | stevec |
| Fans forum minutes on 12:50 - Nov 23 by Northernr |
I think their point is (and I might be wrong because that statement is very odd) that they can’t give public land to QPR for nothing so we can build a new stadium and then make a tonne of money from the residential development of Loftus Road. That’s the ‘property developer’ but I think. |
Ah yeah, that makes a bit more sense. You'd imagine Rangers would at least be willing to pay H & F based on value of the LCS land as it stands, ie not planned for housing, which would seem fair. It's not as if H & F will lose out as when Loftus Road is developed they'll earn a considerable amount out of Council Tax and, one would hope, some social housing made available. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:10 - Nov 23 with 2624 views | Tonto |
Lets not forget, part of the Save Warren Farm messaging was that "big evil rich football club gets public land for free". H&F may (and I should stress this is purely a guess on my part) be trying to avoid the criticism Ealing got... |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:33 - Nov 23 with 2563 views | Northernr |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:06 - Nov 23 by stevec |
Ah yeah, that makes a bit more sense. You'd imagine Rangers would at least be willing to pay H & F based on value of the LCS land as it stands, ie not planned for housing, which would seem fair. It's not as if H & F will lose out as when Loftus Road is developed they'll earn a considerable amount out of Council Tax and, one would hope, some social housing made available. |
It sounds to me like we're trying a similar line to the one that worked for us at Warren Farm.
I.e. here's a facility that the council owns but cannot afford to run anymore and is falling into a state of dangerous disrepair. If you give it to us we'll redevelop it for both our own benefit and the community's - shared facilities in the case of Warren Farm, a new athletics facility and other assets like cafes in the case of Linford Christie - while taking all the responsibility and running costs off your hands.
Difference here is that it would allow us to move out of Loftus Road and redevelop it into flats which would be worth a small fortune to us.
We should pay what the land is worth. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:40 - Nov 23 with 2536 views | Tonto |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:33 - Nov 23 by Northernr |
It sounds to me like we're trying a similar line to the one that worked for us at Warren Farm.
I.e. here's a facility that the council owns but cannot afford to run anymore and is falling into a state of dangerous disrepair. If you give it to us we'll redevelop it for both our own benefit and the community's - shared facilities in the case of Warren Farm, a new athletics facility and other assets like cafes in the case of Linford Christie - while taking all the responsibility and running costs off your hands.
Difference here is that it would allow us to move out of Loftus Road and redevelop it into flats which would be worth a small fortune to us.
We should pay what the land is worth. |
I concur, expect that the value of land is on a scale depending upon what is built on it.. therefore resi is always going to be higher than anything else down to scrap yard, where the land is contaminated and not worth anything. A football stadium is probably about 2/3rds of the way up that scale. But if you are competing with a resi development, you have little to no chance because the value of resi land is going to make a football stadium uneconomic. | |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:00 - Nov 23 with 2475 views | enfieldargh |
Re WF I wonder if the Save WF movement were happy with dilapidated crumbling asbestos riddled buildings on their doorstep and would they have been happy to put their hands in their pockets to beautify the land they love and adored and why had they not done anything about it over the years.
Would love LCS but cant fathom how there would be access to the site from Ducane Road or Scrubs Lane.
I also cant work out how over one thousand new homes have been built on and close to the A1000 in North Finchley, they must be rabbit hutches |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:06 - Nov 23 with 2457 views | Northernr |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:40 - Nov 23 by Tonto |
I concur, expect that the value of land is on a scale depending upon what is built on it.. therefore resi is always going to be higher than anything else down to scrap yard, where the land is contaminated and not worth anything. A football stadium is probably about 2/3rds of the way up that scale. But if you are competing with a resi development, you have little to no chance because the value of resi land is going to make a football stadium uneconomic. |
I think that was the point Hoos was making. Given that it's currently designated for sports, it's on the edge of metro open space, it's got the charitable trust involved and the MOD, the council can't just flog it off for a load of flats. If they could they'd have a duty to do that and put the money back into the public purse.
So it's not as valuable as it should be given its size and location. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:09 - Nov 23 with 2443 views | Northernr |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:00 - Nov 23 by enfieldargh |
Re WF I wonder if the Save WF movement were happy with dilapidated crumbling asbestos riddled buildings on their doorstep and would they have been happy to put their hands in their pockets to beautify the land they love and adored and why had they not done anything about it over the years.
Would love LCS but cant fathom how there would be access to the site from Ducane Road or Scrubs Lane.
I also cant work out how over one thousand new homes have been built on and close to the A1000 in North Finchley, they must be rabbit hutches |
If we're talking about the same development, on the old council estate, I live right next to that now. They've put some narrow houses up along the front of Sweets Way advertised at 3 and four bed but the rooms are tiny. Then behind that it's just huge blocks of flats. Haven't sneaked into those for a look yet. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:59 - Nov 23 with 2310 views | DejR_vu |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:33 - Nov 23 by Northernr |
It sounds to me like we're trying a similar line to the one that worked for us at Warren Farm.
I.e. here's a facility that the council owns but cannot afford to run anymore and is falling into a state of dangerous disrepair. If you give it to us we'll redevelop it for both our own benefit and the community's - shared facilities in the case of Warren Farm, a new athletics facility and other assets like cafes in the case of Linford Christie - while taking all the responsibility and running costs off your hands.
Difference here is that it would allow us to move out of Loftus Road and redevelop it into flats which would be worth a small fortune to us.
We should pay what the land is worth. |
'Difference here is that it would allow us to move out of Loftus Road and redevelop it into flats which would be worth a small fortune to us.'
I'm not sure it would be worth anything to us at all. I think I recall that the ownership of the club and the stadium have been separated. I thought the stadium / land etc. was now owned by a holding company established by the owners.
My biggest concern with all this is that LR is sold for redevelopment, but we end up as tenants in a new stadium ala Coventry. Fine, no doubt, whilst the landlords are the current owners, not so good when they move on. Compounded by the reality of Warren Farm i.e. no cost to the owners for the land, likely Bond scheme to fund the development i.e. liability on the club's balance sheet (fine whilst the owners are funding it, not so good if/when they move on).
No matter what you think of the owners, good or bad, wealthy people just do not willingly flush money down the toilet. They will do whatever they can to recoup as much of what they have lost as they can. Hopefully that will be Sky money on promotion, but if not the only option is the land the stadium sits on. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 15:03 - Nov 23 with 2304 views | Northernr |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:59 - Nov 23 by DejR_vu |
'Difference here is that it would allow us to move out of Loftus Road and redevelop it into flats which would be worth a small fortune to us.'
I'm not sure it would be worth anything to us at all. I think I recall that the ownership of the club and the stadium have been separated. I thought the stadium / land etc. was now owned by a holding company established by the owners.
My biggest concern with all this is that LR is sold for redevelopment, but we end up as tenants in a new stadium ala Coventry. Fine, no doubt, whilst the landlords are the current owners, not so good when they move on. Compounded by the reality of Warren Farm i.e. no cost to the owners for the land, likely Bond scheme to fund the development i.e. liability on the club's balance sheet (fine whilst the owners are funding it, not so good if/when they move on).
No matter what you think of the owners, good or bad, wealthy people just do not willingly flush money down the toilet. They will do whatever they can to recoup as much of what they have lost as they can. Hopefully that will be Sky money on promotion, but if not the only option is the land the stadium sits on. |
Which, again, is probably the point the council is making in that statement. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 15:26 - Nov 23 with 2250 views | Tonto |
just had a thought - there is a way out of this - anything built on Loftus Road site would have to be 100% affordable housing (and proper affordable housing, not shared ownership masquerading as affordable). Could the Council save face (i.e. QPR don't make millions and the Council diddly squat), get their housing quotas up and get an on-going revenue cost off their books whilst maintaining a public asset? perhaps? | |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 15:57 - Nov 23 with 2171 views | loftboy |
| Fans forum minutes on 13:10 - Nov 23 by Tonto |
Lets not forget, part of the Save Warren Farm messaging was that "big evil rich football club gets public land for free". H&F may (and I should stress this is purely a guess on my part) be trying to avoid the criticism Ealing got... |
Meanwhile a Newham council literally gifted westham a stadium that cost millions to build. |  |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 16:07 - Nov 23 with 2151 views | Tonto |
| Fans forum minutes on 15:57 - Nov 23 by loftboy |
Meanwhile a Newham council literally gifted westham a stadium that cost millions to build. |
it wasn't Newham directly, it was the Olympic Park Legacy Company... although Newham's Chief Exec was one of the board members... | |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 16:09 - Nov 23 with 2145 views | Esox_Lucius |
Don't forget that one of the legal entities of QPR / Board members paid £102m for 100 acres of OOC a while back. That seems to have gone very quiet and, as I understood it, it is parcels of land, not one site. Why has that not been investigated for the purpose of building a Stadium? |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Fans forum minutes on 16:47 - Nov 23 with 2070 views | JamesB1979 |
Thanks for the report, very interesting.
Curious about this part:
Ferdinand added: “At the start of the window when we were going after players we were being quoted loan fees and all sorts of things, by the end of the window we were being given those same players. We knew we had to be patient, we couldn’t do the deals at the start of the window because of the finances of the club, but we got who we wanted in the end.”
Does this mean that because we left it late, we had no loan fees for Cameron, Wells and Hamed? If so, cracking business and would suggest that Mclaren was not allowed to "splash the cash to save his job" as some have claimed. | | | |
| Fans forum minutes on 16:50 - Nov 23 with 2062 views | enfieldargh |
| Fans forum minutes on 14:09 - Nov 23 by Northernr |
If we're talking about the same development, on the old council estate, I live right next to that now. They've put some narrow houses up along the front of Sweets Way advertised at 3 and four bed but the rooms are tiny. Then behind that it's just huge blocks of flats. Haven't sneaked into those for a look yet. |
I used to live opposite Sweets Way but I'm talking about the metropolises all along the high road starting at the old B & Q site right along each side of the road down to Sainsburys.
The population of North Finchley must have doubled | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
