SkyscraperCity Forum banner

LONDON - New QPR Stadium (30,000)

212K views 324 replies 77 participants last post by  CWells2000 
#1 · (Edited)
More details are expected to be announced on Monday, however, some of the press in the UK are already reporting that the new stadium will have a capacity of 35,000. It's also been reported that the stadium will feature a retractable roof and seating, so London could be gettin' its own version of Arena 92. Can't wait to see this. :)

From The Times:

The proposed stadium is understood to be in White City, near Loftus Road in West London, and will have a retractable roof and seating, allowing it to be used for concerts and other indoor events, The Times has learnt.
QPR said it would put the brand “on a global scale” and they believe that the extra income generated from the 35,000 capacity — compared with 18,360 at their present site — together with sponsorship from a naming-rights deal and improved corporate facilities will help the club to maintain their status in the Barclays Premier League.
The ability to turn the stadium into an indoor arena means that they will be able to compete with the O2, in southeast London, to hold concerts and exhibitions to generate further revenue. Loftus Road is expected to be sold off for redevelopment into housing, although there may be some restrictions on the site that limit its value.
Tony Fernandes, the QPR chairman, has already announced plans to move to a state-of-the-art training ground next summer and has now turned attention to the new stadium, likely to cost about £180 million.
 
#57 ·
^^This is a Yank asking this, so be gentle with your responses.

As I understand, London clubs like Arsenal and Chelsea who have a world wide brand (played a pick up game in Seattle and 4 guys had on either Arsenal or Chelsea kit) have no trouble filling their stadiums.

How much support does a side like QPR or Fulham or West Ham pull? Do they have a long waiting list for tickets?

Even though it didn't come to fruition, Chelsea was working on a 60,000 seat stadium, Tottenham is working on their 60,000 seat stadium, West Ham is getting a 60,000 seat Olympic stadium, etc etc. With all these clubs upsizing, is there suddenly going to be a vacuum of seating capacity? Or is there enough demand that they can absorb another 100,000 fans per week in London?
 
#58 ·
Arsenal generally fill their stadium well though it's rarely completely full to capacity. They count tickets sold rather than bums on seats so official attendances can be deceiving. But they're now in a stadium that befits the size of the club, no doubt about that.

Spurs are the London club in most dire need of a new stadium, with a huge waiting list for season tickets - hence the 25k extra they're looking to accommodate with a new stadium build. They will want to emulate what Arsenal have done with the Emirates and as soon as they can, because without a Sugar Daddy increasing revenue and cashing in on their large fanbase is vital.

With West Ham it remains to be seen whether they can draw 60k regularly, but the Olympic stadium looks like a good financial opportunity for them, or at least for their owners. As I understand it, there's not much of a waiting list for tickets at their current ground, so it's questionable whether they'd be looking at 60k had the opportunity of the Olympic Stadium not arisen.

Chelsea don't fill their stadium as easily as you'd think and often have to advertise tickets on the radio or on Tube posters. They might be a huge global brand now but the fanbase isn't what some would imagine. They're a big club, but not a giant, and supply does outstrip demand at times. In the fuiture with success behind them and a new generation of fans that success generates, 60k+ might be good for them. At the moment, it might be a bit too much too soon, though it would help them with UEFA's FFP rules which will start biting soon. It's telling that a new stadium was never a huge priority for Roman Abramovich until now.

I think the smaller clubs do ok, but they of course have smaller stadiums to fill. QPR is now a pretty wealthy club and they're looking to get bigger. Their stadium really isn't a Premier League standard ground so it's not suprising they're looking to a new one. And Fulham have steadily grown under Al Fayad and are looking to extend their Cravan Cottage home, so they obviously believe they have the numbers to fill an expanded stadium.

So, to anser your question, West Ham are really the only question mark here in terms of capacity overkill. If QPR go silly on the capacity of their new stadium there might be a vaccuum of seats for them as well but I don't expect them to do that.
 
#59 ·
Arsenal generally fill their stadium well though it's rarely completely full to capacity. They count tickets sold rather than bums on seats so official attendances can be deceiving. But they're now in a stadium that befits the size of the club, no doubt about that.

Spurs are the London club in most dire need of a new stadium, with a huge waiting list for season tickets - hence the 25k extra they're looking to accommodate with a new stadium build. They will want to emulate what Arsenal have done with the Emirates and as soon as they can, because without a Sugar Daddy increasing revenue and cashing in on their large fanbase is vital.

With West Ham it remains to be seen whether they can draw 60k regularly, but the Olympic stadium looks like a good financial opportunity for them, or at least for their owners. As I understand it, there's not much of a waiting list for tickets at their current ground, so it's questionable whether they'd be looking at 60k had the opportunity of the Olympic Stadium not arisen.

Chelsea don't fill their stadium as easily as you'd think and often have to advertise tickets on the radio or on Tube posters. They might be a huge global brand now but the fanbase isn't what some would imagine. They're a big club, but not a giant, and supply does outstrip demand at times. In the fuiture with success behind them and a new generation of fans that success generates, 60k+ might be good for them. At the moment, it might be a bit too much too soon, though it would help them with UEFA's FFP rules which will start biting soon. It's telling that a new stadium was never a huge priority for Roman Abramovich until now.

I think the smaller clubs do ok, but they of course have smaller stadiums to fill. QPR is now a pretty wealthy club and they're looking to get bigger. Their stadium really isn't a Premier League standard ground so it's not suprising they're looking to a new one. And Fulham have steadily grown under Al Fayad and are looking to extend their Cravan Cottage home, so they obviously believe they have the numbers to fill an expanded stadium.

So, to anser your question, West Ham are really the only question mark here in terms of capacity overkill. If QPR go silly on the capacity of their new stadium there might be a vaccuum of seats for them as well but I don't expect them to do that.
Premiere League; last season 2011/2012
home averange attendance of the London clubs by percent capacity:
1. Chelsea 41,478 99,6%
2. Tottenham 36,071 99,6%
3. Arsenal 59,960 99,3%
4. Fulham 25,316 98,8%
5. QPR 17,295 94,1%

When you fill with 99% you have to extend the capacities for sure..
 
#64 · (Edited)
Yes, but the prices in Spain are a fraction of the prices in England. They don't rely on the gate as much for the revenues.

I agree Arsenal could probably fill a larger stadium (70k if not 80k), but I think you've named the main problems; space and cost. 60k seems a fairly standard size and the few bigger stadia have been very expensive (e.g. Wembley). The extra cost only makes sense if you can fill the seats at high prices or the cost per seat decreases. I also think that maximising the corporate entertaining - at least a third of the Arsenal matchday - is a more important consideration than extra seats for the plebs.

Space certainly is a consideration. It definitely is for Spurs and we've dropped down to 56k in our plans. Arsenal may have had the extra room, though. Liverpool have space on their new site and when Hicks & Gillett took over Liverpool they commissioned designs for a larger stadium (73k?), but cost wasn't an issue for them as they didn't have the money to build anything anyway.

Another big issue is transport. The extra people require new transport infrastructure and local councils won't/can't pay for it so won't give permission without a transport plan. This was certainly an issue for Arsenal and is for Spurs and Liverpool. A jump from 38k to 80k instead of 80k is a lot more challenging and expensive.
 
#65 ·
Can only make an informed guess about spurs, however jts1882 is certainly correct about Liverpool, we could maybe fill 80k for 10 games per season (60-70 for the rest), however the transport links that would need to be paid for by the club would not make financial sense. and thats in Liverpool, never mind London.
 
#66 ·
I was not sure about Spurs so I didnt argue for only 56.000 capacity. I thought Hotspur could fill 60-65.000 easiliy.

I didnt think about the transport issues. So i understand that the municipality would not aprove a certain capacity without a transport plan. I just thought that municipality is in charge for the upgradation of the local transport when needed. If 80.000 want to go to the stadium on saturday afternoon municipality has to upgrade the links. However sounds more convenient to bound the clubs to build larger stadiums or to charge the club for transport upgradation.

Corporate seats are very important however football began with the plebs and will finish when loosing the support of the plebs. And at least in england plebs pay a lot ( expensive tickets, t shirts, TV subscription etc)

@C F Looprevil
80.000 for 10 games per season it is not so bad. Is more then 50% of PL. However with the transport issues it looks that we are going to expect a stadium with 60.000 capacity only.
 
#67 ·
I was not sure about Spurs so I didnt argue for only 56.000 capacity. I thought Hotspur could fill 60-65.000 easiliy.

I didnt think about the transport issues. So i understand that the municipality would not aprove a certain capacity without a transport plan. I just thought that municipality is in charge for the upgradation of the local transport when needed. If 80.000 want to go to the stadium on saturday afternoon municipality has to upgrade the links. However sounds more convenient to bound the clubs to build larger stadiums or to charge the club for transport upgradation.
I suspect we could fill 60-65k for all league games, so probably would sell out season tickets and be able to keep prices high (I not saying this is good, just an inevitable commercial reality). But there is a risk we couldn't especially if we have a few bad season (or bad to normal as many rival fans call it.

It doesn't work that way on transport. The local authority and the builder have to come to agreement on an S106 agreement, which includes things like upgrading roads around the development. The council can make planning approval conditional on a lot of things if they want to be difficult. I've been following our stadium plans closely and have looked at the planning documents on the Spurs website. The transport assessment has dozens of documents and hundreds of pages.

It further complcated by the fact that Haringey - the local authority - only has responsibility for the roads, with a London-wide body dealing with public transport. With the needed transport developments for the Olympics, nothing was coming the way of Tottenham ... until the rather convenient riots, which has caused some funds from the Mayor's office to be made available.
 
#68 ·
QPR chairman Tony Fernandes is planning a new 45,000-seater stadium for the club, as the owner feels they are outgrowing their current home ground, Loftus Road.

Rangers' current home ground holds 18,500 and has the smallest capacity of all the grounds in the Premier League.

Fernandes has revealed his plans to build a new stadium for the club, increasing the capacity to around "35,000 to 45,000", with the owner believing that QPR have the capacity to play to crowds of twice that amount.

"I've always felt anything from 35,000 to 45,000 is possible," the chairman told QPR's London Call-In radio show. "If we're playing good football and have a good stadium, offering a good product, people will come. And London's a great city. The message to our architects was to keep what's good at Loftus Road but try to make it a bit bigger."

A site for a new home has not yet been finalised but Fernandes is adamant that talk of a new ground is not a pipe dream and serious discussion is taking place regarding the concept.
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/177359.html
 
#84 ·
QPR push on with new stadium plans despite looming relegation

QPR chairman Tony Fernandes hopes to have some “good news” about the west Londoners' hunt for a new stadium in the next two weeks.

While the Hoops look all but certain to be relegated from the Barclays Premier League, plans for off-field development appear to continue apace.

Ever since Fernandes completed his takeover in 2011, the club have been keen to bring facilities up to top-flight standard and last summer he confirmed QPR were looking at three potential sites for a new home.

An update on that search looks imminent after Fernandes today took to Twitter to explain a widely-reported £15million loan taken by the club.

"Loan for qpr is for new stadium," he said via his account, tonyfernandes.

"Next 2 weeks will be hopefully good news. But work is starting. We will not say anymore on stadium."


The Hoops' Loftus Road home is the smallest ground in the top flight with a capacity of just 18,439 and Fernandes intimated a new stadium would cost around £150million.

The club had last summer hoped to reveal plans for a new 35,000-seater stadium in the Shepherds Bush area but they never materialised.

QPR chief executive Philip Beard has previously spoken of his plans for the new stadium to be "part of a hub of a wider entertainment destination".
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...plans-despite-looming-relegation-8576557.html
 
#89 ·
Well if you're being pedantic about professional football teams in London (outside of the Premier League), in addition to those teams listed by JimB you should add: Brentford, Barnet, Leyton Orient, and Dagenham and Redbridge bringing the total to 15. And that's not including the many non-league teams of professional/semi professional statuses outside the top 4 divisions.
 
#90 ·
I sincerely hope QPR don't come back. 3 teams in one area of one city is a joke. I want a more balanced league, not just clubs from a few areas.

Fulham & QPR offer nothing, they've not come up and survived on merit, they've done so because they're bankrolled.

Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County, Nottingham Forest, Leeds United, etc... So many great clubs with history and large fanbases. The Premier League is becoming drab, too many small clubs that add nothing, thriving due to rich backers.

As a product, these small clubs make the league look naff. Good riddance to QPR & Reading, I also hope Wigan join them, another drab team which send everybody to sleep.
 
#93 ·
I'll add this, even though it's an article from The Sun:

QPR’S new £150million ground is set to be called the Air Asia stadium.

The airline company, run by Hoops’ owner Tony Fernandes, is already the club’s shirt sponsors.

Now they will get naming rights for the proposed 35,000-capacity venue.

Fernandes insists QPR have outgrown their 18,500 Loftus Road home.

A Rangers insider said a formal announcement on the move is “very close.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ndes-Air-Asia-to-sponsor-new-QPR-stadium.html
 
#97 ·
As I said on the Chelsea thread on the UK pages..............no it would not!!!!

It would be a fucking nightmare!

Chelsea do not belong in W12.

They are not wanted in W12.

And, equally importantly, I'm quite sure that the vast majority of their fans do not want to relocate to W12.
 
#99 ·
QPR chief executive guarded on stadium plans

QPR chief executive Philip Beard gave a guarded assessment of the club’s stadium ambitions, but insisted that Rangers continue to make “progress” in their hunt for a new home.


The Rs begin life in the Championship this weekend with Beard and chairman Tony Fernandes adamant that a move away from Loftus Road, which has a capacity of less than 19,000, is integral to the club’s future.

Fernandes had hoped to find a location in west London last summer, but that never materialised. He estimates the cost of such a stadium will be around £150million, and continues to scout possible locations in close proximity to Shepherd’s Bush.

Relegation forced QPR to re-evaluate their finances, but Beard said a new stadium remains very much part of the club’s future.

“We’re making progress with stadium plans, but it’s important we’ve got three or four options,” he said.

“If you decide you’re only going to pursue one option and nothing works you’re back to the start again.

“We’ve got plans and want to stay as close as we can to Loftus Road, that’s important.

“We want to recreate the atmosphere, but if we’re going to do something it’s got to be a multi-use facility.

But Beard urged patience, suggesting that plans for a new stadium remain at an early stage, two years after they were first suggested.

“It would be crazy to say there are concrete plans,” he added.

“We’ve put a new pitch down at Loftus Road, which was one of the oldest pitches in the country.

“We’ve done other work at Loftus Road. Season ticket sales are almost at 10,000. Our focus is on getting Loftus Road ready for August 3.”
http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/qpr/qpr_chief_executive_guarded_on_stadium_plans_1_2306556
 
Top