New stadium ownership

[Olly]

Unless I've missed something and if so I apologize, where is any official statement that we will never own the stadium, that it will never belong to the club? There's been a lot of talk assuming we will just be renting a new stadium from any landlord that takes it over. Why can't there be a situation that in order to compete at the highest levels in the prem one day, that we need an income boost to make player funds more readily available?

If Spurs or Arsenal had announced a similar plan for a multi-purpose stadium no-one would have thought anymore about it. It's a football stadium raising extra income. I praise Tony for his vision in finding a new way forward for a smaller club like us. It will allow us to become a bigger club sooner than ever dreamed of. A 40,000 stadium with better class players will sell out, so contrary arguments are unfounded. So what if new fans latch on? We all started somewhere attending games. Having a QPR family connection is not the be all and end of what constitutes being a QPR supporter.

If the stadium is built and they ever bale out one day, the whole project is sold as QPR, what's the problem with that?

I don't 'tweet', so can someone contact Tony, ask him, and let's clear up this up once and for all. Should have an answer in a couple of days, who's going to do it?

[W12_Ranger]

Unless I've missed something and if so I apologize, where is any official statement that we will never own the stadium, that it will never belong to the club? There's been a lot of talk assuming we will just be renting a new stadium from any landlord that takes it over. Why can't there be a situation that in order to compete at the highest levels in the prem one day, that we need an income boost to make player funds more readily available?

If Spurs or Arsenal had announced a similar plan for a multi-purpose stadium no-one would have thought anymore about it. It's a football stadium raising extra income. I praise Tony for his vision in finding a new way forward for a smaller club like us. It will allow us to become a bigger club sooner than ever dreamed of. A 40,000 stadium with better class players will sell out, so contrary arguments are unfounded. So what if new fans latch on? We all started somewhere attending games. Having a QPR family connection is not the be all and end of what constitutes being a QPR supporter.

If the stadium is built and they ever bale out one day, the whole project is sold as QPR, what's the problem with that?

I don't 'tweet', so can someone contact Tony, ask him, and let's clear up this up once and for all. Should have an answer in a couple of days, who's going to do it?

See Coventry city on stadium ownership

[Stanley]

Good post Greengrass and agree with every word of that. Sorry I can't exactly answer the question though.

[Johnny Tightlips]

Unless I've missed something and if so I apologize, where is any official statement that we will never own the stadium, that it will never belong to the club? There's been a lot of talk assuming we will just be renting a new stadium from any landlord that takes it over. Why can't there be a situation that in order to compete at the highest levels in the prem one day, that we need an income boost to make player funds more readily available?

If Spurs or Arsenal had announced a similar plan for a multi-purpose stadium no-one would have thought anymore about it. It's a football stadium raising extra income. I praise Tony for his vision in finding a new way forward for a smaller club like us. It will allow us to become a bigger club sooner than ever dreamed of. A 40,000 stadium with better class players will sell out, so contrary arguments are unfounded. So what if new fans latch on? We all started somewhere attending games. Having a QPR family connection is not the be all and end of what constitutes being a QPR supporter.

If the stadium is built and they ever bale out one day, the whole project is sold as QPR, what's the problem with that?

I don't 'tweet', so can someone contact Tony, ask him, and let's clear up this up once and for all. Should have an answer in a couple of days, who's going to do it?

The danger is, as we've seen with Coventry, Wimbledon, MK Dons and others, once you dissassociate the club from the stadium, you lose the anchor that holds everything in place.

There is nothing to stop the football club being divorced from the stadium, evicted or, worse case scenario - when the club ceases to be a profitable entity, the owners decide to sell the club and retain the stadium, which, with a hotel, casino, conferencing etc, would be profitable in its own right.

QPR1st seriously need to look at an application to place an "Asset of Community Value" order on LR and any putative new stadium. Hugely worthwhile as a "trust but verify" type of action.

[MYU]

Very good question, the club should own some of the new stadium in some way.

If LR stadium is worth 20 million, where will this money go and how will it be spent?

[Bigears]

Good arguments but IMO renting and not owning actually in the long term, does affect the viable day to day running of clubs.

If you Rent a ground, under most agreements the landlords as a company will need to make money, that means they will negotiate the best possible deal for them, even if it is owned by the same people because each section needs to balance the books, offer bonus to staff and management if objectives are hit etc.. an to achieve this as you have seen in the financial world, people only think about how they can make money regardless if it is short term.

Doing this there are many pitfalls of all of which negatively effect how the Football Club can create revenue, as the landlords will always have a say as to how you can use their product. Examples:

1) Rent you find is the basic rent is covered but others are not and are chargeable extras:
Managers Office, Bar, Use of the Board Room, Booking Office, TV studio, Press Offices, training days, Press days

2) Copyrights – every picture showing the stadium needs to be approved, this needs management and costs, they could even charge you copyright

3) Match day revenue – All Match day takings taken are to be paid to the land lords this could be anything from 100% to beverages only, shared 50 / 50

4) The loaning of revenue against the assets – There are many better business men on here than me, but it is common practice that all business borrow against there assets, and pay it back. This has been done since time, well if we don’t own the biggest asset the stadium and the land. This will impact QPR’s ability to borrow. Some say this will be good, but trust me it is not as it is part of every day to day business action.

All of the above will over time effect the daily cash flow, as the more you don’t have the less you can generate, this will then build up and it is not long before you find your business plan is unmanageable and you don’t have the cash flow to have a sustainable business that is how the other clubs have fallen short.

Yes while we have TF bank rolling it all, it will be fine but you need to look past this IMO and you need to take the required steps to protect QPR for future generations? What would we do, if TF passes it on to his son, his son doesn’t like football (Blackburn) then what do we do?

I am TF and Amit fan and I would trust them but I do think I would need to know how this is going to work not only for the short term while they are here but the long term before I decide.

This is IMO only and some other thoughts to add to the debate and if there are grammer / spelling mistakes sorry english was not my best subject.

[MYU]

Good arguments but IMO renting and not owning actually in the long term, does affect the viable day to day running of clubs.

If you Rent a ground, under most agreements the landlords as a company will need to make money, that means they will negotiate the best possible deal for them, even if it is owned by the same people because each section needs to balance the books, offer bonus to staff and management if objectives are hit etc.. an to achieve this as you have seen in the financial world, people only think about how they can make money regardless if it is short term.

Doing this there are many pitfalls of all of which negatively effect how the Football Club can create revenue, as the landlords will always have a say as to how you can use their product. Examples:

1) Rent you find is the basic rent is covered but others are not and are chargeable extras:
Managers Office, Bar, Use of the Board Room, Booking Office, TV studio, Press Offices, training days, Press days

2) Copyrights – every picture showing the stadium needs to be approved, this needs management and costs, they could even charge you copyright

3) Match day revenue – All Match day takings taken are to be paid to the land lords this could be anything from 100% to beverages only, shared 50 / 50

4) The loaning of revenue against the assets – There are many better business men on here than me, but it is common practice that all business borrow against there assets, and pay it back. This has been done since time, well if we don’t own the biggest asset the stadium and the land. This will impact QPR’s ability to borrow. Some say this will be good, but trust me it is not as it is part of every day to day business action.

All of the above will over time effect the daily cash flow, as the more you don’t have the less you can generate, this will then build up and it is not long before you find your business plan is unmanageable and you don’t have the cash flow to have a sustainable business that is how the other clubs have fallen short.

Yes while we have TF bank rolling it all, it will be fine but you need to look past this IMO and you need to take the required steps to protect QPR for future generations? What would we do, if TF passes it on to his son, his son doesn’t like football (Blackburn) then what do we do?

I am TF and Amit fan and I would trust them but I do think I would need to know how this is going to work not only for the short term while they are here but the long term before I decide.

This is IMO only and some other thoughts to add to the debate and if there are grammer / spelling mistakes sorry english was not my best subject.

Very good post and I'm with you.

Think we fans should know before this goes ahead, if it's not right long term for our club then we need to think again.

[NW_Hoopz]

Very good post and I'm with you.

Think we fans should know before this goes ahead, if it's not right long term for our club then we need to think again.

MYU that post by BIGEARS is exactly the fears VBLOCK / VESPA / MYSELF & others are raising in the Old Oak Common thread & we get QPRRichard & the rest of the brainwashed masses calling for us to be burned at the stake as non believers !

Unfortunately your comment about us thinking again & QPRRICHARD'S about starting a pressure group are both completely useless because WE DON'T OWN IT THEY DO !

As 1/3 owners I'm not exactly sure what the Mittals want out of owning us BUT TF & his gang can't have been any more open about it , and those still in the dark ;

HE WANTS A 'ENTERTAINMENT' VENUE TO THE WEST OF LONDON WITH IT'S EASY TRANSPORT ACCESS ..........

Planning approval for a music / Hotel /Entertainment venue will be a lot more difficult to get without the community goodwill that having a football ground attached will carry.

Football (QPR) is a very minor part of his ability to make money out of any redevelopment.

FOR ONE LAST TIME TF IS HERE TO MAKE MONEY ........ Someone tweet one of his PR gang see if he will answer the questions about stadium ownership & matchday revenue.

In my opinion a 40k stadium does not suit us by the way, would rather a 25k with the ability to add to out in the future.

[MYU]

I don't care what they do as long as our club is secure, I'm sure both Tony & Amit will not damage the long term future of this club.

[QPR71]

MYU that post by BIGEARS is exactly the fears VBLOCK / VESPA / MYSELF & others are raising in the Old Oak Common thread & we get QPRRichard & the rest of the brainwashed masses calling for us to be burned at the stake as non believers !

Unfortunately your comment about us thinking again & QPRRICHARD'S about starting a pressure group are both completely useless because WE DON'T OWN IT THEY DO !

As 1/3 owners I'm not exactly sure what the Mittals want out of owning us BUT TF & his gang can't have been any more open about it , and those still in the dark ;

HE WANTS A 'ENTERTAINMENT' VENUE TO THE WEST OF LONDON WITH IT'S EASY TRANSPORT ACCESS ..........

Planning approval for a music / Hotel /Entertainment venue will be a lot more difficult to get without the community goodwill that having a football ground attached will carry.

Football (QPR) is a very minor part of his ability to make money out of any redevelopment.

FOR ONE LAST TIME TF IS HERE TO MAKE MONEY ........ Someone tweet one of his PR gang see if he will answer the questions about stadium ownership & matchday revenue.

In my opinion a 40k stadium does not suit us by the way, would rather a 25k with the ability to add to out in the future.

not sure anyones asked for you to be burnt at the stake...seems to be those on your side of the argument that are more aggressive in their views..those who take the opposing view, that
a move would be a good thing...that enjoy the prem etc, are brainwashed.....reminds me of marshys tactics.......they must be wrong cos they're brainwashed......perhaps another view
is that you are deluded if you think qpr is a family club.......how is it?....ive supported this team for 40 years+ and have never felt it is my family or any sort of family. just a football club..

I don't see anything TF and the board have done which would justify being called chancers or that they don't have the best intentions for the club

[QPR Richard]

MYU that post by BIGEARS is exactly the fears VBLOCK / VESPA / MYSELF & others are raising in the Old Oak Common thread & we get QPRRichard & the rest of the brainwashed masses calling for us to be burned at the stake as non believers !

Unfortunately your comment about us thinking again & QPRRICHARD'S about starting a pressure group are both completely useless because WE DON'T OWN IT THEY DO !

As 1/3 owners I'm not exactly sure what the Mittals want out of owning us BUT TF & his gang can't have been any more open about it , and those still in the dark ;

HE WANTS A 'ENTERTAINMENT' VENUE TO THE WEST OF LONDON WITH IT'S EASY TRANSPORT ACCESS ..........

Planning approval for a music / Hotel /Entertainment venue will be a lot more difficult to get without the community goodwill that having a football ground attached will carry.

Football (QPR) is a very minor part of his ability to make money out of any redevelopment.

FOR ONE LAST TIME TF IS HERE TO MAKE MONEY ........ Someone tweet one of his PR gang see if he will answer the questions about stadium ownership & matchday revenue.

In my opinion a 40k stadium does not suit us by the way, would rather a 25k with the ability to add to out in the future.

Who's said anything about burning you at the stake? Assumptions which are unfounded.

Have you not considered that if TF wanted just a music venue, why would he bother with QPR? He could just go out and build it.

It doesn't seem to have entered your head that any new stadium needs to be multi-purpose because generally, all stadiums are used about 25 times a year for football. Double the usage and it becomes a viable option. And along with that there is a good amount of money coming into the club.

[jmelanie]

Didn't Tony say that before a final decision is made, he would be consulting with supporters?

[vblockranger]

Didn't Tony say that before a final decision is made, he would be consulting with supporters?

Hope that he did as i think it would be the right thing to do.

[cowleyhoop]

Im sure when i read the report on us moving to old oak common there was a mention of the club having to pay £200 million for the building of the stadium. I couldn't see the club having to pay to build the stadium if we didn't own it outright

[QPR Richard]

Im sure when i read the report on us moving to old oak common there was a mention of the club having to pay £200 million for the building of the stadium. I couldn't see the club having to pay to build the stadium if we didn't own it outright

Yes, good point.