Public Consultation Linford Christie Stadium

While the actual proposal is fine, it’s a very self centred submission, mostly about QPR and not about the community, no matter how many times the word ‘community’ is used in it. Was there a limit on how long a response can be?

 

QPR formally call for 30,000-capacity ground at Linford Christie Stadium
By David McIntyre 26/04/2019

please log in to view this image

QPR have formally outlined their proposal for a 30,000-capacity stadium – which would be compatible with safe standing and include a club museum – in response to the public consultation on the future of the Linford Christie Stadium.
Hammersmith & Fulham Council published the consultation in February, laying out three possible options for the site near Wormwood Scrubs, where Rangers want a new stadium as part of a sports complex.
Option one is to do nothing, which is not seen as a viable choice given that the current facility is not fit for purpose.
The second option is an upgrade of the stadium, which is currently home to athletics club Thames Valley Harriers, while the third option set out was the construction of a 45,000-capacity “performance venue” which could be used by QPR as well as for events.
That was not what QPR were hoping for.
‘Hybrid option’
In response, they have formally asked the council and the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust, which is responsible for the site, to choose what the club calls a “hybrid option” of a 30,000-capacity venue.

please log in to view this image

The Linford Christie Stadium is just over a mile from Loftus Road
In a document published in response to the public consultation, the club state: “QPR does not believe that a 45,000-seater entertainment complex is in the best interests of the club or the community.
“Forty-five thousand would be too large for QPR’s purposes and there are question marks about whether such an arrangement is compatible with the need for primacy of use under Football League regulations.
“A hybrid option that puts a professional football club with the community at its heart as the anchor of a new community sports hub to promote Wormwood Scrubs for exercise and recreation, and in doing so keeps QPR in W12 for another hundred years, is the option that the club believes should be pursued.”
On the all-important issue of ownership of the site, QPR say their preferred option is freehold but that the club “is open to a leasehold arrangement if it is affordable and of sufficient length to provide security.”
Rangers add: “The club could not participate in any arrangement that did not give it adequate security for the future.”
‘Maximum noise’ and a ‘steep rake’
The document issued by Rangers contains a “stadium wishlist” which, as well as a 30,000-capacity ground and a QPR museum, includes “capturing the intimacy and atmosphere of Loftus Road, with every seat close to the pitch, and a steep rake” as well as being “compatible for safe standing, as and when regulations are changed.”
The club also say the venue would be “acoustically designed to keep maximum noise inside the stadium, encouraging a good atmosphere” and that 10% of the stadium would contain either executive or premium seating.
The QPR-led sports hub would also be a base for likes of Thames Valley Harriers, London GAA, PHC Hockey, London Sports baseball team and Kensington Dragons FC.

please log in to view this image

QPR’s owners plan to move the club from Loftus Road
Leaving Loftus Road regardless
The document also reiterates that QPR want a venue for all-year use on non-matchdays, which would provide a vital source of revenue the club currently miss out on, as well as a base for the QPR in the Community Trust, whose work has been widely commended.
Staying at Loftus Road is not an option as far as the current Rangers regime are concerned. QPR reiterate in the document that the club does not believe it has a viable future at its current home and regards the Linford Christie Stadium site as the club’s final chance to relocate within the W12 area.
Rangers are “very unlikely to be based in the borough in the medium to long term” if their proposals are rejected, the document states.

 

Believe 40k stadium and start acting like a big club. Fans will come. Stadium needs to be a stunning design to attract fans. This is a must a doing the new ground on the cheap will NOT work. Our owners are very rich, more so than spuds. So no excuses wanted. This is our chance to put a lot of wrongs right. If we end with a ground about as good as wimbledons then I for one won't be impressed. We are supposed to be a special club, time to take us forward. Bit of briatore flair needed.

 

As I've said before it's highly unlikely we'll move from HQ in the foreseeable future unless it's out of the borough. It's amazing that people in authority would rather leave facilities to crumble than endorse projects that would revitalise and provide new jobs for the area...

Cloud-cuckoo land to think we'd do anything like that. A 40k stadium for a club that averages 12,000 with a team more effective than Mogadon is financial lunacy. Then again TF fits that bill perfectly...

 

If you've not filled out the survey, only a couple of days to go....fair to say the club don't feel confident about the outcome and we're being forced out of W12....

 

One part of the answer must be to throw money at it - likely NOT in the books as far as FFP concerned. The trouble is that Imperial is a wealthy outfit too (though perhaps not as wealthy as the cumulative wealth of our owners).

 

****ers, and complete ****ers!

 

Me too!

 

I've filled in the survey...........time to ramp up the pressure on H&F Council.

Used a very old postcode from when living in The Bush!!!!!!!

 

What was Chelsea's average when they were out of old division 1. Fans will be attracted but need to be a stable premier league team which is obviously a slight issue!

 

Playing in any ground less than half full is always a downer, especially when the team is struggling. I think 25,000 would be more than enough with the option to increase as necessary...

 

Agree 100% the club is delusional at times

 

But surely it would be undemocratic for one person to have all the say. Surely this consultation is some way towards him allowing it to be a democratic process, and if enough people back it, it can go through?

Maybe I'm naive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

An interesting article from the New Civil Engineer with no new information, other than an independed focus.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ristie-stadium-redevelopment/10043060.article

The amount of approvals necessary to make this fly, as detailed in last paragraph, are horrific! :

The council’s consultation document adds:

“The findings of this consultation and any proposals that come forward in the process will need to be approved by the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust Committee. They may also need approval from the Charity Commission and the Mayor of London, as well as the Ministry of Defence (because The Act also requires the Ministry of Defence’s consent for any building on the Scrubs because the Army has always been entitled to its use).

“Following that, we’d draw up specific development proposals on which residents would again be consulted before any formal decisions are taken. We believe in doing things with residents, not to them.”

 

**** it, build it in Park Royal. Hurry up though, 'cos I'm getting on.

 

To avoid stress it my be worth accepting that we may not see some things like:

- Rafal Nadal's Roland Garros title record being brojken (I doubt if it will ever be broken!)
- QPR in Europe
- QPR in a new ground, etc

...and the list can easily be very extended.

It you accept it, then suddently you are much much more relaxed and less stressed.

 

I'd given up years ago, unless we go out of H&F we're stuck with HQ. It's done me since the 60s so a few more is no big deal...

 

Is there enough room at Warren farm to also build a stadium
Ealing council seem a lot more amenable