Fulham & QPR Could Share Stadium

[Burt]

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...

[Nick the Swede]

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.

[epsomraver]

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.

[TonyGilroy]

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?

[Burt]

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.

[finnster01]

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.

[epsomraver]

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.

[TonyGilroy]

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.

[Nick the Swede]

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.
 

[MJG]

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.

[MJG]

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:

[Nick the Swede]

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.

[Bertie Wooster]

I couldn't conceive Fulham FC not linked with the Craven Cottage.

[Burt]

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.

[Burt]

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:

[ron]

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.

[Lighthouse]

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.

[Rupert]

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.

[TheDon]

the unigate site is contaminated land therefore i read we were refused that land a few years ago.