http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8797924/Queens-Park-Rangers-and-Fulham-could-consider-sharing-a-new-stadium.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8797924/Queens-Park-Rangers-and-Fulham-could-consider-sharing-a-new-stadium.html)
Queens Park Rangers and Fulham could consider sharing a new stadium
Queens Park Rangers visit Craven Cottage on Sunday for a west London derby, but is there a chance that the two Premier League clubs may eventually share a bespoke new stadium? It seems so.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02013/Tony-Fernandes_2013335c.jpg)
Thumbs up: Could Tony Fernandes relocate QPR and share with Fulham? Photo: AFP By Jason Burt
11:00PM BST 29 Sep 2011
1 Comment
They have shared before, of course, with Fulham the tenants at Loftus Road for two seasons between 2002 and 2004 while Craven Cottage was redeveloped after plans for an ambitious new ground had been shelved.
Going even further back, in the late 1980s, there was even a scheme by the club's then owners to sell off the Cottage and merge the two clubs as Fulham Park Rangers and play at Loftus Road.
That plan, after understandable hostility, was quickly dropped.
However new QPR chairman Tony Fernandes has identified that with a stadium at a capacity of just 18,300 and with limited facilities and no real hope of redeveloping the existing ground, his club have to move. And quickly.
It helps that QPR are well located within London with parcels of land available nearby, partly opened up by the BBC's Salford relocation and the huge Westfield shopping development. Indeed Fernandes has already candidly floated the idea of not just moving but sharing.
Some have assumed that this would entail a deal with Chelsea, who have been considering for some time whether to quit Stamford Bridge and have received approaches ever since Roman Abramovich acquired the club.
It is believed that QPR would like to examine whether an initial 30,000-capacity stadium would work for them and there has even been the idea of building a slightly larger arena and trying to offer discounted tickets to watch the other team that occupies it, and vice-versa.
The attitude of Fulham owner Mohamed Fayed is key, of course, to the possibility of a ground-share. He would encounter opposition to re-developing the Craven Cottage site for commercial use from the local council, as he has found out before, while there is no suggestion that right now he would be even interested in discussing a new stadium.
But given the proximity of both clubs, 2.5 miles apart, and given their similar fan-bases and the challenges they face to stay in the Premier League and compete, it would be surprising if, come Sunday, there isn't even the slightest suggestion of a collaboration in the pre-match hospitality.
Have I woken up in 1987?
No effing way 096.gig
Lazy journalism i hope...
I don't think it claims to be anything other than guesswork but it remains a fact that if either FFC or QPR aspire to be more than they presently are a bigger stadium is essential and proximity gives sense to sharing.
I've never had a problem with this in principle but very large numbers of Fulham supporters do and for MAF to embark on that course of action would be very high risk. My guess is that he was up for that 10 years ago but not now.
Were he to sell though ambitious new owners might well think differently and I can see this as part of such a sale package.
It does look like lazy jouralism in that there are no directly attributed quotes etc.
But I suspect it is on the agenda, as it does pop up from time to time, and with a new Chairman at the helm at QPR it seems a natural time for this to crop up once more.
As ever with footballing matters there are two sides to this.
First is the emotional side - no way will fans from either club want this to go through.
Then there is the business side - where some form of ground share probably makes a great deal of sense, not just in terms of economies of scale for the current (capped) size of both clubs but also as a potential platform for growth.
I think for me personally this idea is completley dependant on location!! I do not have a problem with a ground share as it makes great sense for both clubs, allows for expansion however ruduces the risk. I feel if it is close enough to our current stadium and not completly out the area of fulham then I wouldn't care to much. Yeah we lose the history and herotige that the cottage has given us but its a new chapter in our history. Many like my self call for a revamp at the cottage, extra seats but I think really this is the best option as to modernise the cottage would take vast amounts of money and a complete over haul. Transport is another issue for me, with the tube being a farce for travelling fans and no where to park.
I guess I could say I'm keen on the idea!
Quote from: ollienixs on September 30, 2011, 09:29:18 AM
I think for me personally this idea is completley dependant on location!! I do not have a problem with a ground share as it makes great sense for both clubs, allows for expansion however ruduces the risk. I feel if it is close enough to our current stadium and not completly out the area of fulham then I wouldn't care to much. Yeah we lose the history and herotige that the cottage has given us but its a new chapter in our history. Many like my self call for a revamp at the cottage, extra seats but I think really this is the best option as to modernise the cottage would take vast amounts of money and a complete over haul. Transport is another issue for me, with the tube being a farce for travelling fans and no where to park.
I guess I could say I'm keen on the idea!
Really ?, well no disrespect to you but I would sincerely hope you`re in the minority. Why on earth would we want to play in White City, spitting distance from Loftus Road?, yes its the same borough but its not a Fulham area, it could be on the other side of London. We would eventually be junior partners in Rangers back yard. I would never watch Fulham there, infact Craven Cottage means that much to me I couldnt bring myself to watch us anywhere else.
Something else, I wouldnt totally dismiss this article because a Rangers friend who knows someone connected to the board told me about this six months ago and I posted in on TIFF, he`d said there had even been meetings between the clubs??
at some point in the future it will come down to this,do you want to stay at the Cottage and slip out of the Prem possibly never to return OR move from the Cottage to expand the fan base to give to a better chance to move forward,grow and hopefully stay in the Prem for many years to come???
We are playing a very fine balancing act at the moment and we don't know what the future will bring(new owners ect).I don't want to leave the Cottage but I think we are running out of options,we can't expand much more at the Cottage,we need better transport link/parking,better changing rooms and facilities for players officials and fans and I think the old girl has been refurbished as much as she can take.I want to stay at the Cottage,it's home after all but I think push will come to shove at some point soon.
Bizarrely I had a dream last night about Fulham moving to a new stadium that was a ground share with QPR. It was still in central london, but on top of a hill (dont ask) and was a meccano style boring stadium.
Sharing with QPR would inevitably mean moving to a site near loftus road. Whilst it would be good to get a boost from ticket sales etc, I would hate to then play in a new, half empty stadium in the championship if we were to get relegated. Imagine if we moved in with QPR, got relegated and they just stole all of our recently acquired fans?
In response to the title of this thread - No we couldn't!
There is always an emotional reaction at play...
The bottom line for me though is I have been following Fulham "man and boy" since 1974, and if we had to move location so long as it is not something daft (like Wimbledon's move to Milton Keynes) then I would continue to follow the Whites.
The only reason I would stop following the team would be not so much related to moving to a new ground (painful though this would be as Craven Cottage is unique and I love the place) but if we had to merge with another club (that would be too much).
Why do a lot of people think that moving there to a larger stadium is automatically going to increase our fan base??, its absolute b*llocks. Increase QPRs? yes ,ours no. A lot of die hards wont go, plain and simple. Where are these hordes of new fans, coming from?. Popular opinion seems to indicate we draw the bulk of our support from South West London/Surrey are they going to be happy?,because 2.5 miles in London is a long way. We certainly wont pick up any new fans in the A40, Uxbridge Rd corridor because QPR and Chelsea have very large & established support there, even after 10 years in the prem we`re probably the worst supported West London club in those areas.
People banging about transport links and parking as well, we`re a London club for crying out load, we`ve all got problems, concede it would be handy to have a nearer tube link but fact of the matter is there are three tube lines within a twenty minute walk, we`re hardly in the back of beyond
When I mentioned growth I had revenue and profitability in mind...
So I agree that we will not attract a much larger fan base than we currently have.
But a new development would enable more extensive and better quality corporate entertainment and merchandising facilities (which will have more financial upside than adding a few thousand more to the ground capacity) and a ground share would significantly reduce the operating expense.
Ugh...sacrilege...but football is a business now rather than a community service. Unfortunately. And from that perspective a ground share makes sense.
Emotionally, I am more than happy with where we are!
If a new stadium were built somewhere in West London to be shared by us and QPR both clubs would have to work hard to fill the empty seats.
Wouldn't be easy and all sorts of marketing initiatives would be tried but if linked to success on the pitch these initiatives would have an impact on crowd sizes. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that one club would benefit whilst the other wouldn't - significantly it would be a battle between the seperate marketing departments.
I am not of course advocating this. I know for sure that significant numbers of Fulham supporters would never attend a match at the new ground. I would though.
...Fulham & QPR Could Share Stadium, just the same as Liverpool and Everton, Spurs and Arsenal could share a stadium, it is a theoretical possibility, but as a long term matter it would mean the end of one of either Fulham or qpr in the process of time as the fans would boycott games and again in time the boards would get together and merging will become 'financially a viable issue'.
I know on a previous thread one of their fans actually believes they are a family club, but who want's to be a member of the Manson family...
OMDB
090.gif
What if either side is relegated? We'll just be the next Darlington/Oxford with a too big ground that looks stupid. Stay where we are until the point where we're obviously outgrowing it, which isn't the case now.
I'm sure in the not too distant future everyone will be able to watch all games on tv anyway, at which point attending crowds will diminish considerably and ticket prices will have to drop as a result and (to follow the theory to its natural conclusion) you'll get a few more back in but not enough and eventually it'll be like TV audiences where you apply for free seats to watch the Wogan show. There'll be canned stadium noise (or massively miked up.. oh, wait) and the whole sheband will fall apart.
AC & Inter - Yes.
FFC & QPR - No.
I agree with the QPR chairman, Tony Fernandes when he says that there is no real hope of redeveloping their existing ground, his club have to move. And quickly.
Barrow-in Furness and the surrounding area lack a premiership side. QPR can be off there and call themselves Queen's Park Barrow in the Furnace. Good riddens.
That is about as likely as me sharing my bed with Rihanna
Quote from: finnster01 on September 30, 2011, 01:23:15 PM
That is about as likely as me sharing my bed with Rihanna
Ah yes Mr Finn, but between you and me (and a few hundred others) would you like that to happen or would you shove her off the edge before things got too steamy?
I have not read any other replies, but they can f**k right off. WE ARE SW6 NOT W12. 096.gig 096.gig 096.gig 096.gig 096.gig
There is a rationale for stadium-sharing, but it sure doesn't happen very often. Here in the US, the NFL Giants and Jets use the same stadium (in New Jersey!) but the baseball Yankees and Mets do not. Years ago, the Detroit baseball Tigers and NFL Lions shared a stadium, but now each has its own. The NFL Raiders and baseball A's share, but the nearby 49ers and baseball Giants don't.
During my football trip to London four years ago, I went to games at the Cottage and at Loftus Road. I thought the Cottage was historic, albeit old-fashioned, but Loftus Road just seemed like a tired old dump. Easy to understand why QPR's new owner wants new digs, and why he'd be happy if MAF shared the expense. But I sympathize with everyone who thinks the Cottage should be maintained for FFC, no matter what. It's a wonderful place.
At the end of the day im not sitting in anyones piss!
Ground share no !
New stadium im 50%-50% Can understand both sides of the fence but at this moment in time i love me cottage...
"Who's playing at the Concrete Bowl this weekend, Club A or Club B?"
Nah, I don't like the sound of that.
And I'm old enough to remember QPR's flirtations with the old White City Stadium. A vast, silent tomb of a place. And that was during their home matches !
There's much to be said for tailoring the premises to fit the crowds. Overheads are down, atmosphere is up. Historically, Fulham has not had a regular call for 30000 plus for many years. Revenue can be generated by hosting other matches at your own place etc. ...not so easy when the ground is shared.... and also there's a sense of identity retained at the cottage, which is difficult to quantify and assess.
To get 60,000 at the Shepherd's Bush Superbowl is a pipedream, and requires a worldwide marketing campaign to get the two clubs' replica shirts and merchandise in every sports outlet worldwide......to see a Fulham shirt in any shop outside SW6 takes some doing atm....
Oh yes, and we've got to start winning silverware regularly before that.
Bust-ups and tantrums in football ( surely not!) could leave one club homeless or sharing like poor lodgers somewhere else and the other saddled with debt..... Enter lawyers for their cut of a few million.......
Starting trying this out of its natural order finishes up with vast White City-like morgues as it has in the past.
I'm happy where we are ...but you knew that already !
No way - but if Mo insists - make it in Roehampton - see how keen QP ha ha are then ?
The die hards, initially may boycott the ground but will probably return, to the new stadium.
Incresed seating? A problem to fill for both clubs. Worst case would be a nice new stadium, half empty (like Wigan, Blackburn etc), both Fulham and QPR flirting with relegation. What then?
Who will own the ground.? Will both teams lease it? When QPR are back in div3, will they need it? Afetr all, we don't want a bunch of div3 hoofers messing up our nice premier league pitch :005:
Ticket prices. I doubt I will get an argument tickets for football are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE today. A new stadium, mark my words, will inevtibly mean higher prices.
Transport....big issue. Trains and tubes are a mess at week-ends. However, if you can get to Putney Bridge tube, the walk is one of the best bits of the day (unless it is raining of course). To be honest, I think transport to any ground in London is a bit of a nightmare.
However, in principal, sharing a ground seems like a very sensible idea. Awful lot of hurdles to jump though. Where will it be?
No.
I will not play in the Loftus cottage.
We've been here before, of course. Last time we had the Back to the Cottage crew demanding that we return to Craven Cottage, even if this ultimately cost us our Premiership place (22,000-odd capacity at the time compared to the 30,000+ at the proposed Dairy Crest site, plus lucrative add ons like pubs, shops etc and the chance to hold concerts and the like there). In the end we went back home, but at the cost of selling Saha to United in order to finance the revamp needed, we were fourth when he left, we finished in ninth place, so there is a possibility (note, a possibility) that it cost us a Champions League place, more likely another go at the UEFA Cup.
I'm not sure why people are automatically assuming the West London Super Stadium would be in W12. If this is more than somebody idling his day away by speculating aloud, surely the most likely shared ground for Fulham and QPR would be Stamford Bridge, once Chelsea have relocated to wherever they might be going. In that case, I believe QPR would be far more concerned about losing their identity, and supporters, to us. They would be moving "out of their area" (seriously, how many of you live in SW6? I'm 30 miles away!)
In any event, I would be astonished if any of this happened in the near future, so with my prediction record the plans are undoubtably going to be announced on Sunday, but it is the sort of thing that could easily happen under our next chairman. And, guess what, just as the opposition to the no-longer-new badge had little effect, a determined chairman will move us wherever he wants, even if a few thousand of the old guard don't like it. I suspect that a large number of younger fans will be happy so long as we are in the borough and transport links are easier (which brings us back to the Bridge).
As for me, I love the Cottage, I've been there since 1968 (not all the time, you understand, just matchdays) and I am happy to stay there, but I do support Fulham FC, not Craven Cottage FC.
wtf?! no way, why would we share with those dicks when wev'e got great groubnd anyway
Share a stadium with ANYBODY - absolutely not!!! 092.gif 096.gig 090.gif
Quote from: richie17 on September 30, 2011, 12:34:00 PM
I'm sure in the not too distant future everyone will be able to watch all games on tv anyway, at which point attending crowds will diminish considerably and ticket prices will have to drop as a result and (to follow the theory to its natural conclusion) you'll get a few more back in but not enough and eventually it'll be like TV audiences where you apply for free seats to watch the Wogan show. There'll be canned stadium noise (or massively miked up.. oh, wait) and the whole sheband will fall apart.
Actually Rich, at least it's been proven here in the USA, more games on TV often leads to higher overall attendance.
Any economist wish to opine?
I'd rather see Fulham play Rochdale and Barnet every week than leave the most beautiful ground in the entire football league. As Blingo say's Rangers can feck right off.
I had read that Fulham obtained from the borough the permission to increase the attendance of the Putney End of 5000 places. This would be a good new because it would mean that there won't be ground sharing, but I can't remember where I had read it, can anyone help me?
I guess at 20 I'm one of the younger generation, and personally can't see us playing anywhere other than at the cottage. I'd boycott.
My first ever Fulham game was at Loftus Road and I can entirely understand why QPR want to move.
Equally while I love the Cottage (it's probably the main reason why I'm a Fulham fan) I do recognise that it's quite small, there aren't that many ladies toilets, as has been discussed on a previous thread today the acoustics aren't great, and as I experienced on the way into the Brazil v Ghana match it hasn't got great access routes if we were to expand massively.
Ultimately though - I've been to too many London Irish rugby games played in a half empty stadium in the middle of nowhere and regardless of what division we play in I'd hate for that to happen to Fulham.
Speaking of rugby does anyone think there's any scope for the occasional 'Big Day Out' like the rugby clubs have? If Harlequins can practically fill Twickenham for a 'derby' match is there any reason a football club can't fill Wembley for the occasional double header?
Despite never wanting to share a permanent ground with the Bush Pikeys, it might be just a teeny bit worth it to watch 90% of their fans spontaneously combust when they realise that they can no longer hide behind a tiny tin-pot ground as the sole reason for lower average home attendances than us since the year dot.
In all seriousness though, they can afford to move out on their own, and neither of us need each other. :046:
no choice then Chelsea move out we move in... no ground share and the best all round option for us to move forward...
The only mileage in this might be to groundshare at Stamford Brifde if the Dark Side move out. But the seat colours would have to be changed, of course.
I believe Chelsea's plans for a new stadium would require a cash injection from their current ground being redeveloped for residential and commercial use. Leaving the stadium for use by us and/or QPR does not provide that cash injection...
Quote from: timmyg on September 30, 2011, 08:39:15 PM
Quote from: richie17 on September 30, 2011, 12:34:00 PM
I'm sure in the not too distant future everyone will be able to watch all games on tv anyway, at which point attending crowds will diminish considerably and ticket prices will have to drop as a result and (to follow the theory to its natural conclusion) you'll get a few more back in but not enough and eventually it'll be like TV audiences where you apply for free seats to watch the Wogan show. There'll be canned stadium noise (or massively miked up.. oh, wait) and the whole sheband will fall apart.
Actually Rich, at least it's been proven here in the USA, more games on TV often leads to higher overall attendance.
Any economist wish to opine?
Timmy, I've heard the same thing, but I don't think it works exactly the same way in the US as over here. No disrespect to american sports intended, but whenever I watch a ice hockey, basketball, baseball or American Football game I tend to see a totally different kind of support than most sports/countries have over here.
A bit harsh maybe, but it seems history, rivalry and geographical location is by far more important to fans in Europe than the US.
If it is only about 'bums on seats' the theory might work fine, but I want true supporter bums on the seats at the Cottage.
We've been here before, of course. Last time we had the Back to the Cottage crew demanding that we return to Craven Cottage, even if this ultimately cost us our Premiership place (22,000-odd capacity at the time compared to the 30,000+ at the proposed Dairy Crest site, plus lucrative add ons like pubs, shops etc and the chance to hold concerts and the like there). In the end we went back home, but at the cost of selling Saha to United in order to finance the revamp needed, we were fourth when he left, we finished in ninth place, so there is a possibility (note, a possibility) that it cost us a Champions League place, more likely another go at the UEFA Cup.
What a load of tosh! :dft007: not one true fact in that whole post, the back to the cottage crew were FANS who wanted us to keep our identity and keep our ground, something I am proud to have been involved in. The dairy crest site was a non starter any way , the cost of updating the cottage was paltry when compared to Mo's dream which was never going to get planning and would have involved merging with QPR, :014: Saha would have gone whatever had happened.Our league position was totally irrelevant to where we played.
I agree with all of that except your comment that a groundshare with Rangers would mean a merger. There's no reason why 2 teams can't share a stadium and maintain their separate identities.
I'm against our moving but would accept a move if it were to happen. I don't understand why fans of literally dozens of other clubs have accepted moves in recent years and frequently welcomed it but for us, uniquely, its the thing that must NEVER even be mentioned.
Why are we special? Didn't Sunderland fans, for example, love Roker Park as much as we love the Cottage?
It's called "change", and the most common instinctive reaction to change is "why change", and the emotional reaction also tends to outweigh any logic that there may be behind any proposal.
Quote from: Nick the Swede on October 05, 2011, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: timmyg on September 30, 2011, 08:39:15 PM
Quote from: richie17 on September 30, 2011, 12:34:00 PM
I'm sure in the not too distant future everyone will be able to watch all games on tv anyway, at which point attending crowds will diminish considerably and ticket prices will have to drop as a result and (to follow the theory to its natural conclusion) you'll get a few more back in but not enough and eventually it'll be like TV audiences where you apply for free seats to watch the Wogan show. There'll be canned stadium noise (or massively miked up.. oh, wait) and the whole sheband will fall apart.
Actually Rich, at least it's been proven here in the USA, more games on TV often leads to higher overall attendance.
Any economist wish to opine?
Timmy, I've heard the same thing, but I don't think it works exactly the same way in the US as over here. No disrespect to american sports intended, but whenever I watch a ice hockey, basketball, baseball or American Football game I tend to see a totally different kind of support than most sports/countries have over here.
A bit harsh maybe, but it seems history, rivalry and geographical location is by far more important to fans in Europe than the US.
If it is only about 'bums on seats' the theory might work fine, but I want true supporter bums on the seats at the Cottage.
As I live in New York now, I can but this in perspective. Mr Nick, you are over-generalizing a bit. The US has plenty of "real" rivalries in all sports, including college. Red Sox - Yankees, Dodgers - Giants, NY Rangers - NY Islanders, NY Giants - Philadelphia, Redskins - Cowboys, Baltimore Colts - Cleveland Browns, Lakers - Celtics etc. and the list goes on. These are not fair weather fans or rivalries, they go back years and are truly hate games that includes history, rivalry and geographical location.
All you have to do is attend one of these events and you'll know what I mean.
However, I do think you have a point in that it gets watered down very quickly from there. Too many games (except NFL and College) is the main culprit I think.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 05, 2011, 01:15:10 PM
I agree with all of that except your comment that a groundshare with Rangers would mean a merger. There's no reason why 2 teams can't share a stadium and maintain their separate identities.
I'm against our moving but would accept a move if it were to happen. I don't understand why fans of literally dozens of other clubs have accepted moves in recent years and frequently welcomed it but for us, uniquely, its the thing that must NEVER even be mentioned.
Why are we special? Didn't Sunderland fans, for example, love Roker Park as much as we love the Cottage?
Tony, Sunderland fans were not forced to move out of Sunderland, we were being forced out of Fulham and right on our main rivals doorstep, two entirely different scenarios.
Sunderland supporters had a choice?
We're already on the doorstep of 3 main rivals. Moving a few miles within London should not be any big deal from a transport point of view and hardly any of us live within a few miles of Craven Cottage anyway.
Mr Finnster, sure there must be some rivalries in the US too, but what I'm getting at is more the the fact that clubs are moved like MK Dons, most (or even all?) sports don't have promotion/relegation and finally not many rivalries outside of the BIG Apple have anything like derbies.
TV can obviously get people into the sports and become fans and in that way keep filling the grounds, not sure it would work the same way over here. I'm afraid that we'd lose some true fans and just exchange them with more corporate prawn eaters.
As I said, I don't mean to slag of american sports, just saying it seems to work in a different way and so does the fans compared to over here in Europe.
Out of interest are there any "Old Gits" on here who can talk about what the feeling in the ground was back in the late 60's when the plans for the Eric Miller stand were first put forward.
Was it all "bloody hell we dont want change" "We wont be able to walk down to the other end" etc.
I know its not quite the same but I think no one really wants change at any time.
Back in the laste 80's when we were in real trouble I remember visiting a couple of locations where the board were talking about 10K all seater stadiums for us...we have come a long way in 20 odd years. We could share but it would have to be on equal terms and very well planned.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 05, 2011, 03:03:31 PM
Sunderland supporters had a choice?
We're already on the doorstep of 3 main rivals. Moving a few miles within London should not be any big deal from a transport point of view and hardly any of us live within a few miles of Craven Cottage anyway.
Looks like I'm moving from Tolworth to Woking in the near future, so anywhere down the A3 will be fine by me. :hook:
Quote from: MJG on October 05, 2011, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 05, 2011, 03:03:31 PM
Sunderland supporters had a choice?
We're already on the doorstep of 3 main rivals. Moving a few miles within London should not be any big deal from a transport point of view and hardly any of us live within a few miles of Craven Cottage anyway.
Looks like I'm moving from Tolworth to Woking in the near future, so anywhere down the A3 will be fine by me. :hook:
The reserves used to ground share with Woking a few years back... So why not :011: I love the massive barn they call(ed?) a supporters bar.
I couldn't conceive Fulham FC not linked with the Craven Cottage.
Quote from: MJG on October 05, 2011, 03:09:17 PM
Out of interest are there any "Old Gits" on here who can talk about what the feeling in the ground was back in the late 60's when the plans for the Eric Miller stand were first put forward.
Was it all "bloody hell we dont want change" "We wont be able to walk down to the other end" etc.
I know its not quite the same but I think no one really wants change at any time.
As it happens even after the Riverside stand had been built you were able to sneak from one side of the ground to the other... I started watching in 1974 and remember being able to stand at the Putney End one half, and the Hammersmith End the other, and the route was around the back of the Riverside stand.
Quote from: Bertie Wooster on October 05, 2011, 03:24:28 PM
I couldn't conceive Fulham FC not linked with the Craven Cottage.
None of us can, there is a strong emotional attachment.
But Arsenal fans probably said the same of Highbury, Bolton fans of Burnden Lane, Sunderland fans of Roker Park, Man City fans of Maine Road, Reading fans of Elm Park...
Well, OK, perhaps not in this last example :dft011:
Quote from: MJG on October 05, 2011, 03:09:17 PM
Out of interest are there any "Old Gits" on here who can talk about what the feeling in the ground was back in the late 60's when the plans for the Eric Miller stand were first put forward.
Was it all "bloody hell we dont want change" "We wont be able to walk down to the other end" etc.
I know its not quite the same but I think no one really wants change at any time.
Back in the laste 80's when we were in real trouble I remember visiting a couple of locations where the board were talking about 10K all seater stadiums for us...we have come a long way in 20 odd years. We could share but it would have to be on equal terms and very well planned.
The change then from the riverside terrace to the Eric Miller stand involved us losing our viewing position on or near the half way line for the princely sum of 5 shillings (in today's money still a very modest £6)...paid at the gate. Perhaps an insight into a game that had big earners at the time, but a
spectators' game that hadn't been hijacked by media moguls and turned into a cash cow.
and there's the rub; the game has been taken from the people who turned up in thousands and who were the principal source of the game's income.
For Fulham to survive they will need to share a ground. Away from The Cottage. The Cottage is unigue and is the reason most of the fans first fell in love with the club. But the fact is we need to move on. We need a ground that can cope with the fans, the traffic and the future. We can stay unique slowly dying and then falling down the leagues. Or we can look to the future. It really is as simple as that. Some fans prefer death to glory. But glory has the better taste.
Quote from: epsomraver on October 05, 2011, 01:05:06 PM
We've been here before, of course. Last time we had the Back to the Cottage crew demanding that we return to Craven Cottage, even if this ultimately cost us our Premiership place (22,000-odd capacity at the time compared to the 30,000+ at the proposed Dairy Crest site, plus lucrative add ons like pubs, shops etc and the chance to hold concerts and the like there). In the end we went back home, but at the cost of selling Saha to United in order to finance the revamp needed, we were fourth when he left, we finished in ninth place, so there is a possibility (note, a possibility) that it cost us a Champions League place, more likely another go at the UEFA Cup.
What a load of tosh! :dft007: not one true fact in that whole post, the back to the cottage crew were FANS who wanted us to keep our identity and keep our ground, something I am proud to have been involved in. The dairy crest site was a non starter any way , the cost of updating the cottage was paltry when compared to Mo's dream which was never going to get planning and would have involved merging with QPR, :014: Saha would have gone whatever had happened.Our league position was totally irrelevant to where we played.
Sorry to return to this, but not one true fact? Maybe not anything you would want to agree with, but several true facts. We were fourth when Saha was sold (fact), we did finish ninth (fact), the goals did dry up after his departure and, in my opinion, this was why we dropped down the table. Maybe you disagree, that is your right. It may have cost us a Champions League or UEFA Cup place, speculation, which is why I used the word "possibility" (twice!).
I find several of your comments unlikely, but you may well have relevant information that I am not privy to (Dairy Crest a non-starter? Mo wanting to merge us with QPR? Do tell), so would not care to describe your views as "tosh", while still disagreeing with you. The cost of returning to the Cottage may well have been paltry compared to Mo's dream, but remember, we had just rejected that dream. So why would he still feel obliged to pump in the same amount of money?
This, by the way, was one question I constantly asked your BTTC friends (sorry, did I claim they were not fans, as your capitals seem to suggest, or do you think that only BTTC people count as fans?), where was the money going to come from? Not one of them ever tried to give me an answer. That's another fact, not tosh.
the unigate site is contaminated land therefore i read we were refused that land a few years ago.