Queens Park Rangers and Fulham could consider sharing a new stadium

[DouDou_87]

Its a ridiculous idea. End of

[Olly]

It's being mooted now to get initial reactions, and then secondary opinions later when people have had time to think about it. It will be interesting to see when the idea floats on Fulham MB's.The Milan teams do it and their supporters aren't exactly library goers.

[Gerryhatrick]

Can't see it at all imo.
The risk with building a new stadium of 30-35k is that of possible relegation, but by ground sharing the risk doubles and causes a lot of other complications like is it still 50/50 costed if one goes down? It works in europe because those teams are very unlikely to go down, but over here it's much more competitive.

And just remember, that the chocolate you found that you thought was wiped under the seat by a small child from last weeks rival club, might not be chocolate ........:leaking:

[Gtleighsr3]

It's being mooted now to get initial reactions, and then secondary opinions later when people have had time to think about it. It will be interesting to see when the idea floats on Fulham MB's.The Milan teams do it and their supporters aren't exactly library goers.

most say its ball bags,most hate it,some say where we gonna get{QPR} 30k fans from,some quite like the idea.

[DouDou_87]

It's being mooted now to get initial reactions, and then secondary opinions later when people have had time to think about it. It will be interesting to see when the idea floats on Fulham MB's.The Milan teams do it and their supporters aren't exactly library goers.

The San Siro is completely different though. The government built the stadium for AC Milan and Inter Milan are actually tennants and have been since just after WW2.

Both teams hate the arrangement but are too skint to fund a new 65k+ ground.

Maybe its just me but the whole idea sounds insane, we are separate clubs and should have separate grounds regardless of the potential financial benefits.

[Gtleighsr3]

i think the ex shopkeeper will be all over this.i mean his ex son was sharing the princess of wales with god knows how many others wasnt he.

[Shania]

Halve the overheads but also halve the profits for conferencing, hotel, etc etc...

. Who needs to groundshare with Fulham. Bah!! Not us

[SullivanQPR]

A non-starter - Amit flatly ruled this out on the podcast interview.

I might be wrong, but I think he only ruled out sharing with Chelsea.

[Snaxo]

http://www.london24.com/sport/championship/qpr_2_5433/qpr_boss_groundshare_with_fulham_would_be_common_sense_1_1076200

[rangerforevereastcote]

atthe end of the day qpr as we are cannot afford to go and get a new ground, if we were based in the midddle of nowhere ie swansea can buy and build for cheap , where we are located can multiply the cost by 5 ,

the question maybe is do we stay as we are , no new ground and constantly fight to stay alive and punch above our weight OR

ground share?

there really the only 2 options

[wicksta]

Can't see it at all imo.
The risk with building a new stadium of 30-35k is that of possible relegation, but by ground sharing the risk doubles and causes a lot of other complications like is it still 50/50 costed if one goes down? It works in europe because those teams are very unlikely to go down, but over here it's much more competitive.

Wrong - 1860 Munich were relegated in the mid 2000s (while sharing with Bayern and having a new ground on the way), they almost went down to the regional league as well. Bayern Munich ended up buying 1860's share of the Allianz Arena. 1860 still haven't been promoted back to the 1st Bundesliga and nearly went bust again this year before Bayern bailed them out again.

But in a way, I guess this proves your point as well.

[silvercue]

Can't see it at all imo.
The risk with building a new stadium of 30-35k is that of possible relegation, but by ground sharing the risk doubles and causes a lot of other complications like is it still 50/50 costed if one goes down? It works in europe because those teams are very unlikely to go down, but over here it's much more competitive.

The risks are not doubled. They are reduced. Also the risk is far smaller from the outset as the stadium cost is halved. I am glad you are not one of my project managers.

[Gerryhatrick]

The risks are not doubled. They are reduced. Also the risk is far smaller from the outset as the stadium cost is halved. I am glad you are not one of my project managers.

I appreciate that the initial financial outlay is reduced as are the ongoing costs, logically they are indeed halved, but this isn't my point.

What I meant was that there are possibly two clubs that could be relegated as opposed to one, therefore risk of relegation is doubled, i.e. one plus one equals two. and I wasn't referring to the financial risk which is an utterly different issue altogether.

However, if one of the teams were to be relegated, problems of equally dividing the ongoing costs with one team in a lower div and getting no premiership sky money and less revenue than the other would cause a major imbalance, financially.

[QPRDave]

The neighbours ain't too keen either

http://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7f59f27e9a4750b075024b2d9e1fa934&topic=15744.0

Love poster No 10 who worries about relegation,and us stealing their new fans!!

Gosh I hope we don't lose fans to Fulham!

[kron-1664]

although i would hate it personally it makes so much sense, 2 smaller prem clubs with dilapidated old grounds within 3 miles of each other. 50 % costs shared.