-
-
Oh well. We never had a chance anyway. Best be beaten now than get our hopes up. Those councils are too clever by half. -
It doesn't read like that to me. It looks more like a negotiating tactic. And quite right too. Why should our billionaire owners get the land for free? I also think giving the community a share is a good idea. All it requires is for the owners to go back to the table to renegotiate.Originally posted by Rangers77 View Post
Comment
-
Lets hope young Amit is the one who puts our case forward and is the one dealing with the council. With him dealing with this I think we would stand a decent chance of at least proposing something that will be looked at seriously.Comment
-
Certainly agree he is the best candidate to work with the council in the hope of reaching a deal , but is it a cases of both sides playing hardball ??Originally posted by 1973 ranger View PostComment
-
Maybe. But a very public and illl tempered statement, which, referring to the possibility of redeveloping Loftus Road, is staggeringly ill-informed. It's a Labour Council, of course, so one can imagine what they'd like to do with the site......Originally posted by Hubble View PostComment
-
Dogs after the previous chairman's way of dealing with Car Giant I think in Amit we have a guy who knows how to get a deal done in a way all parties are satisfied and most importantly for the club.Comment
-
This talk of the club having to part fund the training ground and new stadium what does that mean ?? The sale of L Rd ?? If not how can the club pay for anything what bank would fund QPR buying a window box nevermind a large plot of land with the debts we oweComment
-
Would imagine Jamie Rueben is doing the negotiations as it is line of expertise.Comment
-
This is Lee Hoos' response, from the Fans' Forum. This was in the minutes of the meeting published by Clive on LFW:
"Earlier this week Hammersmith and Fulham Council issued a statement responding to an economic impact report published by QPR talking up the benefits to the borough of QPR being allowed to move to the site of the Linford Christie Stadium and build a new ground there. The council accused QPR of trying to secure the public site on metropolitan open land for free, and the development of being less about the community aspect the club has sought to talk up and more about multimillionaire owners looking to property develop in a booming part of the city.
CEO Lee Hoos said: “Our response is we’re baffled. We conducted an economic impact survey which we published, the council has taken umbrage at that and I don’t know why because it’s not critical of anybody. It’s where we are as a club, how we impact the local economy, how we could impact it after a move. If the council say the land is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, which is one of the things they’ve said, they would have a duty as elected politicians to pursue hundreds of millions of pounds and put it back into things like care. I don’t see how it is worth that unless you developed it for residential properties, if that’s what you want to do. If they’ve taken umbrage because we’ve said that’s our last chance of staying in the borough, again, unless there’s a site somewhere else that they haven’t told me about and nobody else has told me about it is the last hope. If it’s just about economics we’re not going to be the best economic producers from that site but what we produce is a lot more than economics, a lot more than cash, it’s social value and what we add to the community. The various programmes we run here, the council are indirect beneficiaries of what we do with the social programmes.
“All I’m saying is we can’t sustain ourselves here. Once the baffling bit of the statement is over I get down to the next bit and wonder if anybody has been listening to me for the last three years. They’re saying they could help us re-do Loftus Road, when for three years I’ve been explaining why you can’t re-do Loftus Road. It just doesn’t work. At this stage of the game to be talking about redoing Loftus Road is a bizarre statement to make. The shareholders did like the idea of people taking stakes in the club, they’d be delighted to offload some of the funding requirements this club has, if the council wants to take a stake in that by all means.
“We’ll continue the dialogue with the council. It’s their land. In fairness to them it’s a very complex site with the Ministry of Defence, charity commission, metropolitan open land issues so I’m totally with them on that. They will continue to go through the process. I’ve already said why we have to move, I was brought in to create a sustainable business case here, not rely on a sugar daddy. I want to make sure 50 years from now there’s a sustainable football club here because football clubs are the absolute foundation of the communities they serve.”
Clive's full report here: https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/footba...%93-fans-forumComment
-
Thanks, Hubble.Comment
-
Simple case of a labour run council not trusting property developersComment
-
How is it that when another thread ran this story, the response was matter of fact and accepted as what was to be expected, but now that the Standard has put its sensationalist oar in, the battle lines have been drawn?Comment
-
No one buys that for a single second.. It doesn't work because there's less potential property revenue. That's the truth. The club still have to learn that people can see through spin.Originally posted by Hubble View Post
“
Why should the council help the club realise income via a sale of LR? No one at the council gives a toss about QPR revenue streams, and rightly so.
We have to make a much better case for acquiring LC and why that is better for the community as whole tha staying where we are.
To date, Hoos has failed to do this.Comment
-
Just pay for the land and stop farting aboutComment
Tweet
Comment