It's easy to fill a 40k stadium if it's priced right. Please read the post first

[Buffalo]

Can't say .....tis a secret

[NW_Hoopz]

Well done chaps... you know who you are. No need for me to add anything really - except, I was wondering where the precedent was in this country for someone building a 40k stadium and then promptly slashing ticket prices??? Maybe we should change our name to Utopia Park Rangers.

I've often thought that too, who has ever heard of someone spending ### Million on a venue only to slash the price of entry

But surely all you scummy builder types could get lots of work building the mega-multi-purpose super-stadium?

The ones that are them... they know.

I'm delighted you take such an interest... they know because my instinct told me that they would know - but then again nobody's instinct is infallible, so a couple of them let me know that they knew, just to be sure. Probably a little rude of me to be so cryptic but then again I'm no Bertie so I don't like to name names, – sorry if I've caused any distress.

He can always ask me to ghost it for him... once I've finished writing London Park Hammers: Tweeting the Brand

I know exactly who I was referring to - the problem appears to be that you don't. I'm sure that if they want you to know who they are then they will tell you and all will be well in the world.

Made my night ............

I bet you weren't the 40k voter

[Stanley]

Is it like the secret 7 then?!....oooh ...perhaps they've gone for cucumber sarnies and lashings of lemonade

I thought that was The Famous Five...or maybe I'm getting my Blyton mixed up...

Anyway.............HURAAAAH!!!

[NW_Hoopz]

HURAAAAH!!!

IMPOSTERS !

There's only one secret 7

[DeepcutHoop]

Poor old Scamper. Timmy gets a place in the Famous Five, but poor old Scamps is left out.

Secret Seven? Secret Scumbags more like...

[Olly]

except, I was wondering where the precedent was in this country for someone building a 40k stadium and then promptly slashing ticket prices???

Well Mr Swakely, the precedent starts with us. All precedents start somewhere and our situation is different from anybody else. For example, when clubs build new stadiums, they estimate the figures for increased capacity, but build in such a way that the initial increase is small but with an option to expand if attendances rise. They do this because their stadium is football only, and a club like Brentford is not going to jump straight in with a 50,000 seater if and when they do theirs.

We are building a 40,000 one because ours will be the first club ground in the country to be multi-purpose. Whether or not all the profits from the total development of hotels, concerts etc come back to the club is something at this time we fans do not know. I would think some for us and some for Tony and his backers to re-coup their investment. It could also be the first 'football venture' where a club makes an ongoing profit.

Phil Beard is the man who was employed for his O2 experience, and when the ground is finished, he'll come into his own with the entertainment business side. They want the big capacity for the concerts or whatever. Tony's vision is way ahead of anybody else in the game. He is not going to be stupid enough to pitch high opening prices where we look like a 'coventry'.

So you set the prices at a level which fill the ground. Tony is sports mad and fair play to him, he may aim to set QPR as a top football club. It's the brand to go with his Air Asia business. If he invests a lot of the side money back into the club to start with, then the standard of football and player rises. While this is going on, we will be acquiring new regulars. What's wrong with that?

Then you very slowly increase the prices over a few years keeping the stadium filled until you get to a level where there is a waiting list to join because of the new standard of football and prices.

People in all environments are often wary of change and sometimes see new ideas in a negative way. Unless you're a businessman who can see a plan for success. But once the benefits of change are fully explained, then more people come onside. Because no-one from the club realizes we have an ongoing issue here and haven't explained more detail yet, it probably reflects the current voting. I think the club should tell us a general plan at a fans meeting of how they will be going about things, and if it's along the lines of how I think I see it, then I'm in.

[MrSwakeley]

Well Mr Swakely, the precedent starts with us. All precedents start somewhere and our situation is different from anybody else. For example, when clubs build new stadiums, they estimate the figures for increased capacity, but build in such a way that the initial increase is small but with an option to expand if attendances rise. They do this because their stadium is football only, and a club like Brentford is not going to jump straight in with a 50,000 seater if and when they do theirs.

We are building a 40,000 one because ours will be the first club ground in the country to be multi-purpose. Whether or not all the profits from the total development of hotels, concerts etc come back to the club is something at this time we fans do not know. I would think some for us and some for Tony and his backers to re-coup their investment. It could also be the first 'football venture' where a club makes an ongoing profit.

Phil Beard is the man who was employed for his O2 experience, and when the ground is finished, he'll come into his own with the entertainment business side. They want the big capacity for the concerts or whatever. Tony's vision is way ahead of anybody else in the game. He is not going to be stupid enough to pitch high opening prices where we look like a 'coventry'.

So you set the prices at a level which fill the ground. Tony is sports mad and fair play to him, he may aim to set QPR as a top football club. It's the brand to go with his Air Asia business. If he invests a lot of the side money back into the club to start with, then the standard of football and player rises. While this is going on, we will be acquiring new regulars. What's wrong with that?

Then you very slowly increase the prices over a few years keeping the stadium filled until you get to a level where there is a waiting list to join because of the new standard of football and prices.

People in all environments are often wary of change and sometimes see new ideas in a negative way. Unless you're a businessman who can see a plan for success. But once the benefits of change are fully explained, then more people come onside. Because no-one from the club realizes we have an ongoing issue here and haven't explained more detail yet, it probably reflects the current voting. I think the club should tell us a general plan at a fans meeting of how they will be going about things, and if it's along the lines of how I think I see it, then I'm in.

An interesting and well-argued post, Greengrass. Unfortunately, I don't really see it that way, as so much of it seems to be based on what you would want to happen (and by the way, I'd love that to happen too) rather than any real grasp on the realities of the situation.

"We are building a 40,000 one because ours will be the first club ground in the country to be multi-purpose. Whether or not all the profits from the total development of hotels, concerts etc come back to the club is something at this time we fans do not know. I would think some for us and some for Tony and his backers to re-coup their investment. It could also be the first 'football venture' where a club makes an ongoing profit."

Nice thinking and wouldn't it just be wonderful if it happened? The trouble is it won't. (And it's not the first multi-purpose club ground - try The Reebok, for instance.)

Why on God's earth would Tony and his fellow investors invest so heavily in a project purely to just recoup their investment? Like any venture capitalists, they invest for the long term, on the basis of a not-unsubstantial profit for their investment. Unless, I have missed something none of these investors are business angels, so why would they give profits from hotels, concerts – the ENTIRE reason why they invested in the first place - to the club?

"Tony's vision is way ahead of anybody else in the game. He is not going to be stupid enough to pitch high opening prices where we look like a 'coventry'. So you set the prices at a level which fill the ground. Tony is sports mad and fair play to him, he may aim to set QPR as a top football club. It's the brand to go with his Air Asia business. If he invests a lot of the side money back into the club to start with, then the standard of football and player rises. While this is going on, we will be acquiring new regulars. What's wrong with that?"

Wow, that's a pretty big statement. Er, what exactly is his vision?? As you, yourself have pointed out, it hasn't been explained to us. And I refer you to what I said above - just why would he invest the 'side money' as you call it back in to the club? The side money in actual fact is the 'profit' - the return on investment promised to investors when Tony drew up his business plan to attract investors in the first place. The stadium is the golden goose, the potential money-making machine, not QPR FC. Now of course, I could be wrong and these hard-nosed business people might have a Road to Damascus conversion, fall in love with the club and decide that they don't need to get their money back or get any ROI - and instead invest it in the club. Now that would be lovely… and totally out of character for any venture capitalist I have had the misfortune to encounter.

And reducing ticket prices to attract more people is very noble - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it – except that it doesn't work, particularly on the scale involved with QPR - adding 20k week in, week out. Fulham have added four or five k during their long spell in the Prem, many of them tourists, although there are certainly more youngsters around in Fulham shirts these days. We are talking about 30 years investment in the future here - and with only the faintest possibility of making anything other than a paltry return.Why would a visionary businessman use the profits from a money-making venture (hotels, pop concerts) to subsidise a smaller venture when the returns by comparison would be so much less? Dave Whelan hasn't managed to fill whatever Wigan's ground is now called after years of cheap ticket offers – and that is using 'cheap' relatively - although to be fair, he has managed to create an ongoing profit on average crowds well under 20k.

I think it's great that we have new regulars, that's how a club survives, and even new not-so-regulars, but it's still a painful process and will understandably upset some fans no matter how much one argues about the march of progress. That's happened at several other clubs, Fulham included. Also, ask Wimbledon fans about the march of progress and Pete Winkleman's plans for success.

"People in all environments are often wary of change and sometimes see new ideas in a negative way. Unless you're a businessman who can see a plan for success. But once the benefits of change are fully explained, then more people come onside. Because no-one from the club realizes we have an ongoing issue here and haven't explained more detail yet, it probably reflects the current voting. I think the club should tell us a general plan at a fans meeting of how they will be going about things, and if it's along the lines of how I think I see it, then I'm in."

Yes of course, there will be accusations of being a Luddite. I do want to see the club thrive and move on - and whether we like it or not, to compete in the money-spinning world of the Premier League, there will be many things that stick in our crawl. But there are ways of moving on and ways of moving on… evolution v revolution, I suppose

But as I keep banging on about, the investors in our club see a plan for making money for themselves - and why shouldn't they after their massive investments - it's not about success for QPR. The fact that QPR can benefit along the way (and the improved investment in infrastructure is a massive benefit) is exciting but where my personal scepticism comes in is whether it should be success at all costs. Please remember, the club is being used as a means to an end, not the end in itself - and applying back-of-the-envelope economics to our situation, while laudable, is a triumph of hope over reality.

Of course we should all aspire but any aspirations have to be grounded by that reality

Perhaps Tony really is like no other businessman before him… I just don't happen to think that. What is going on may be the best chance for our club to survive and flourish - and no I don't have any big alternative suggestions - all I am saying is we should be clear on just why it is happening and not be clouded by wishful thinking.

[Johnnykc]

An interesting and well-argued post, Greengrass. Unfortunately, I don't really see it that way, as so much of it seems to be based on what you would want to happen (and by the way, I'd love that to happen too) rather than any real grasp on the realities of the situation.

"We are building a 40,000 one because ours will be the first club ground in the country to be multi-purpose. Whether or not all the profits from the total development of hotels, concerts etc come back to the club is something at this time we fans do not know. I would think some for us and some for Tony and his backers to re-coup their investment. It could also be the first 'football venture' where a club makes an ongoing profit."

Nice thinking and wouldn't it just be wonderful if it happened? The trouble is it won't. (And it's not the first multi-purpose club ground - try The Reebok, for instance.)

Why on God's earth would Tony and his fellow investors invest so heavily in a project purely to just recoup their investment? Like any venture capitalists, they invest for the long term, on the basis of a not-unsubstantial profit for their investment. Unless, I have missed something none of these investors are business angels, so why would they give profits from hotels, concerts – the ENTIRE reason why they invested in the first place - to the club?

"Tony's vision is way ahead of anybody else in the game. He is not going to be stupid enough to pitch high opening prices where we look like a 'coventry'. So you set the prices at a level which fill the ground. Tony is sports mad and fair play to him, he may aim to set QPR as a top football club. It's the brand to go with his Air Asia business. If he invests a lot of the side money back into the club to start with, then the standard of football and player rises. While this is going on, we will be acquiring new regulars. What's wrong with that?"

Wow, that's a pretty big statement. Er, what exactly is his vision?? As you, yourself have pointed out, it hasn't been explained to us. And I refer you to what I said above - just why would he invest the 'side money' as you call it back in to the club? The side money in actual fact is the 'profit' - the return on investment promised to investors when Tony drew up his business plan to attract investors in the first place. The stadium is the golden goose, the potential money-making machine, not QPR FC. Now of course, I could be wrong and these hard-nosed business people might have a Road to Damascus conversion, fall in love with the club and decide that they don't need to get their money back or get any ROI - and instead invest it in the club. Now that would be lovely… and totally out of character for any venture capitalist I have had the misfortune to encounter.

And reducing ticket prices to attract more people is very noble - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it – except that it doesn't work, particularly on the scale involved with QPR - adding 20k week in, week out. Fulham have added four or five k during their long spell in the Prem, many of them tourists, although there are certainly more youngsters around in Fulham shirts these days. We are talking about 30 years investment in the future here - and with only the faintest possibility of making anything other than a paltry return.Why would a visionary businessman use the profits from a money-making venture (hotels, pop concerts) to subsidise a smaller venture when the returns by comparison would be so much less? Dave Whelan hasn't managed to fill whatever Wigan's ground is now called after years of cheap ticket offers – and that is using 'cheap' relatively - although to be fair, he has managed to create an ongoing profit on average crowds well under 20k.

I think it's great that we have new regulars, that's how a club survives, and even new not-so-regulars, but it's still a painful process and will understandably upset some fans no matter how much one argues about the march of progress. That's happened at several other clubs, Fulham included. Also, ask Wimbledon fans about the march of progress and Pete Winkleman's plans for success.

"People in all environments are often wary of change and sometimes see new ideas in a negative way. Unless you're a businessman who can see a plan for success. But once the benefits of change are fully explained, then more people come onside. Because no-one from the club realizes we have an ongoing issue here and haven't explained more detail yet, it probably reflects the current voting. I think the club should tell us a general plan at a fans meeting of how they will be going about things, and if it's along the lines of how I think I see it, then I'm in."

Yes of course, there will be accusations of being a Luddite. I do want to see the club thrive and move on - and whether we like it or not, to compete in the money-spinning world of the Premier League, there will be many things that stick in our crawl. But there are ways of moving on and ways of moving on… evolution v revolution, I suppose

But as I keep banging on about, the investors in our club see a plan for making money for themselves - and why shouldn't they after their massive investments - it's not about success for QPR. The fact that QPR can benefit along the way (and the improved investment in infrastructure is a massive benefit) is exciting but where my personal scepticism comes in is whether it should be success at all costs. Please remember, the club is being used as a means to an end, not the end in itself - and applying back-of-the-envelope economics to our situation, while laudable, is a triumph of hope over reality.

Of course we should all aspire but any aspirations have to be grounded by that reality

Perhaps Tony really is like no other businessman before him… I just don't happen to think that. What is going on may be the best chance for our club to survive and flourish - and no I don't have any big alternative suggestions - all I am saying is we should be clear on just why it is happening and not be clouded by wishful thinking.

And the award for the longest post in the world is!................... Swakers!

I only read the first 5 chapters.......is this going to be available on kindle? I might try and read the rest over the coming months.........

[NW_Hoopz]

FANTASTIC POST ..........

( and no name calling )

[Johnnykc]

FANTASTIC POST ..........

( and no name calling )

To be fair.....it is a very well reasoned post....

I was just looking for a cheap laugh.......

[QPRDave]

...I can't Swakers got concrete boots in my size lined up!!!

[vblockranger]

Good post Swakeley, "success at all costs" ? not for me.

[QPRDave]

And the award for the longest post in the world is!................... Swakers!

I only read the first 5 chapters.......is this going to be available on kindle? I might try and read the rest over the coming months.........

Tell me how it finishes will ya?....Did the secret 7 get off the island and get home in time for jam sandwiches and lemonade...(lashings of !)

[QPRDave]

I thought that was The Famous Five...or maybe I'm getting my Blyton mixed up...

Anyway.............HURAAAAH!!!

ahaha i never noticed this

[Johnnykc]

Good post Swakeley, progression, success or the slightest hint of change ? not for me.

Well now we know where you stand