Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[SpoonTon]

2 hours ago, The Spider said:

Then allow me to clarify. When Hampden was re-developed 20 years ago various bodies (EEC grants, local councils, BT etc.) and QP ploughed in money to keep the stadium going. This included Joe Public who purchased 50 year debentures on the assumption that Hampden would remain the National Stadium for 50 years. At that time the SFA were quite happy with that arrangement and never said a word about "well that's at your own risk as we might have a re-think further down the line".

So now (and I concede that they are perfectly legally entitled to!) the SFA sense an opportunity to get Hampden for a fraction of the price they would need to fork out for another 20 years rent, as they recognise that QP are potentially legally liable to repay Joe Public for loss of debenture priviliges if we reject the SFA's offer. Now you may call that smart commercialism, but I take a dimmer view, hence my "morally reprehensible" remark.

Why make that assumption? I absolutely want Hampden to remain the national stadium, but it's very much a minority view to keep Hampden as the national stadium as it is. Surely at the end of the initial rent period there has to be a consideration of whether that deal remains the best option? Why should the SFA value Queens Park over Scottish football fans (who are major stakeholders in all of this)? 

There should have been no assumption from QP - they should have been fully aware of the possibility that Hampden would no longer be viewed as fit for purpose by the end of the rental agreement. 

[HoBNob]

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

? Why should the SFA value Queens Park over Scottish football fans (who are major stakeholders in all of this)? 

 

This, a million times this.

[an86]

I think it’d be fair to say that we signed a quite ludicrous deal when Hampden was rebuilt. Complete short-termism and done with a naivety that thought that a gentleman’s agreement was a good way to conduct multi-million pound business. Absolutely mind boggling when you think about it.

Whilst we’re in no way blameless for the situation we find ourselves in, we’re undoubtedly being absolutely done over by a shower of unscrupulous b*****ds who know the consequences of us not agreeing to a deal.

Nobody would expect market value in this situation, but I think most would expect something approaching a fair settlement. There is no real reason why Queen’s Park shouldn’t retain Lesser Hampden as part of any deal, for example. It’s a mutually beneficial deal, where Queen’s Park have a home and the SFA have complete control over the national stadium. What does the SFA lose if we’re at Lesser? Very little. What do we lose if we’re not playing in the Southside? Our club. To actually f**k us over and potentially leave us homeless is worse than the derisory offer that we’re going to have to take.

[The Spider]

Apart from the naivety referred to above (and yet historically the SFA have been the biggest supporter of our club which is entirely based on an ethical philsophy, hence the lack of anticipation that they would be the very ones to want to screw us over), another reason for the short-termism (a 20 year lease instead of a 50 year one to cover the debenture period) would have been the club's desire to return to the historical full ownership arrangement as quickly as possible.

That has most certainly now come back to bite us in the posterior, but the decision-makers didn't have the benefit of 20 years of hindsight back them, so I'm not going to apportion blame in their direction. If the SFA wish to ignore the 150 years of service that this club has provided it's country (the Scottish style of playing, the major contribution to the rules of the game, the huge number of international players, the ground etc.. etc.) then to me that's more of a reflection of the contempt they hold us in than any lack of foresight on our part.

[HoBNob]

2 hours ago, The Spider said:

. If the SFA wish to ignore the 150 years of service that this club has provided it's country (the Scottish style of playing, 

Just because the national team has been shite doesn't mean you had to follow them tbf. 

The SFA evidently don't hold Queens Park in contempt, they're looking out for the best deal for the football association. It doesn't require amazing levels of foresight to realise that a lease not covering the debenture period was fucking stupidity, it's your choice not to apportion blame to whoever made that choice but it's the wrong one, there's been plenty clubs in the past 150 years who have suffered due to mistakes with the best intentions at boardroom level, those clubs will also have had history, and I can't think of any incidents where the SFA have then stepped in to safe the day, that's simply not in there remit. 

As mentioned before, should the SFA value Queens Park over the fans? 

[strichener]

18 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Just because the national team has been shite doesn't mean you had to follow them tbf. 

The SFA evidently don't hold Queens Park in contempt, they're looking out for the best deal for the football association. It doesn't require amazing levels of foresight to realise that a lease not covering the debenture period was fucking stupidity, it's your choice not to apportion blame to whoever made that choice but it's the wrong one, there's been plenty clubs in the past 150 years who have suffered due to mistakes with the best intentions at boardroom level, those clubs will also have had history, and I can't think of any incidents where the SFA have then stepped in to safe the day, that's simply not in there remit. 

As mentioned before, should the SFA value Queens Park over the fans? 

Let's remember that the SFA paid Rangers more for hosting 2 semi-finals than they pay QPFC for a year's rental. 

Prior to the TNS debacle, the SFA had agreed to rent Hampden for £1.1m per annum for a period of 40 years.  They ended up with £1.1m for 10 years and then £500k per annum for 10 years, whilst reneging on a 500k contribution and contributing £600k per annum into an improvement fund that they have control over.  Let's not pretend that the SFA have not already massively benefited from the public money pumped into Hampden and to a far greater degree than QPFC.

[HoBNob]

10 hours ago, strichener said:

Let's remember that the SFA paid Rangers more for hosting 2 semi-finals than they pay QPFC for a year's rental. 

Prior to the TNS debacle, the SFA had agreed to rent Hampden for £1.1m per annum for a period of 40 years.  They ended up with £1.1m for 10 years and then £500k per annum for 10 years, whilst reneging on a 500k contribution and contributing £600k per annum into an improvement fund that they have control over.  Let's not pretend that the SFA have not already massively benefited from the public money pumped into Hampden and to a far greater degree than QPFC.

And what's that got to do with anything? They also paid Celtic more than what they paid St Johnstone that year, it's got absolutely no relevance to the QP situation though. 

 

It makes sense that the SFA have benefitted more than QP seing as the money was pumped into Hampden because the national team plays there, not because QP play there. 

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, Grant228 said:

It makes sense that the SFA have benefitted more than QP seing as the money was pumped into Hampden because the national team plays there, not because QP play there. 

You seem to have quite a good grasp of everything's that going on here Grant, and in isolation your above statement is quite sensible, but just to put things in their proper perspective could you remind us all how much of the £64M that was spent on Hampden 20 years ago actually came out of the SFA's coffers bearing in mind, as you yourself have said, that they were the main beneficiaries?

[The Spider]

Assume that you are still researching this Grant, so let me save you some time as I've now found the amount of money that the SFA contributed towards the last Hampden re-fit bill of £64M, and their proportion was................... £0.00. Now you can applaud the SFA for their commercial nous all you want, but is that what you would call an equitable arrangement?

Nobody at QP wants Joe Public's sympathy, or to be heavily subsidised by Scottish Football (via the SFA), but is it really too much to ask that if the SFA won't extend the rental period then there should be a bit of quid pro quo in operation here, and that we should get a reasonable settlement for our land (not the stadium which has been significantly funded by grants), instead of their current opportunistic "take it or be liquidated" stance?

Out of interest, anyone got a rough idea of what the market value for 33 acres of housing site in Mount Florida should be worth these days (and non-weegies keep your cheeky responses to yourselves )?

[HoBNob]

4 hours ago, The Spider said:

Assume that you are still researching this Grant, so let me save you some time as I've now found the amount of money that the SFA contributed towards the last Hampden re-fit bill of £64M, and their proportion was................... £0.00. Now you can applaud the SFA for their commercial nous all you want, but is that what you would call an equitable arrangement?

Nobody at QP wants Joe Public's sympathy, or to be heavily subsidised by Scottish Football (via the SFA), but is it really too much to ask that if the SFA won't extend the rental period then there should be a bit of quid pro quo in operation here, and that we should get a reasonable settlement for our land (not the stadium which has been significantly funded by grants), instead of their current opportunistic "take it or be liquidated" stance?

Out of interest, anyone got a rough idea of what the market value for 33 acres of housing site in Mount Florida should be worth these days (and non-weegies keep your cheeky responses to yourselves )?

I'm well aware that they contributed "nothing" instead they were meant to pay back yourselves over a number of years were they not providing they were based there? Seems fairly obvious to me that someone should've guaranteed that they were based in the stadium for that long eh? 

 

Going by the posts on here the QP fans are gagging for a bit of sympathy by everyone, including the SFA. If you don't consider the offer by the SFA to be reasonable then reject it and sell the place  for housing and be done with it, if as you've alluded to that isn't feasible and the offer from the SFA is the most profitable then what are you expecting them to do? Offer more money for the sake of it? They'll be going out to get the best deal for the SFA by offering the lowest amount that they think they can get away with, do they have you over the barrel due to dodgy board decisions? Evidently, should they give you more money because of that? No. 

 

As mentioned, should the SFA value Queens Park above everyone else, including the fans? No. 

[strichener]

19 hours ago, Grant228 said:

And what's that got to do with anything? They also paid Celtic more than what they paid St Johnstone that year, it's got absolutely no relevance to the QP situation though. 

 

It makes sense that the SFA have benefitted more than QP seing as the money was pumped into Hampden because the national team plays there, not because QP play there. 

Well it counters your claim that they were "fucking stupid" for not getting a lease that covered the debenture period when this was actually the intention.  QP were getting more income from the stadium before the redevelopment than after it, they used up over £1m of their own reserves and then had to agree to a deal that completely changed the dynamics of the business case.  Meanwhile the blame was laid squarely at the feet of TNS and therefore QPFC completely ignoring that TNS was a fudge to allow the provision of public money to prevent a private company from benefiting and contained as many Directors from the SFA (2) as it did QPFC  (2) out of a total of 7.

The second paragraph just shows ignorance of the background to the redevelopment.  Public money was not used based on the fact that a sports team plays there but for the fact that it was an important part of our national infrastructure.  QPFC bore all the risk (quite rightly as owners) whilst the SFA receives all the benefits for a price that they had already agreed to pay for just internationals, cup games and offices.  The fact was that external financiers held the gun to QPFC's head which has allowed to SFA to benefit to the tune of millions over the years whilst depriving QPFC of similar amounts.

I would personally have preferred the redevelopment funding had been used for an alternative venue but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that the only one body has benefited from the redevelopment and they act as de facto owners of the stadium during the lease period.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Well it counters your claim that they were "fucking stupid" for not getting a lease that covered the debenture period when this was actually the intention.  QP were getting more income from the stadium before the redevelopment than after it, they used up over £1m of their own reserves and then had to agree to a deal that completely changed the dynamics of the business case.  Meanwhile the blame was laid squarely at the feet of TNS and therefore QPFC completely ignoring that TNS was a fudge to allow the provision of public money to prevent a private company from benefiting and contained as many Directors from the SFA (2) as it did QPFC  (2) out of a total of 7.

The second paragraph just shows ignorance of the background to the redevelopment.  Public money was not used based on the fact that a sports team plays there but for the fact that it was an important part of our national infrastructure.  QPFC bore all the risk (quite rightly as owners) whilst the SFA receives all the benefits for a price that they had already agreed to pay for just internationals, cup games and offices.  The fact was that external financiers held the gun to QPFC's head which has allowed to SFA to benefit to the tune of millions over the years whilst depriving QPFC of similar amounts.

I would personally have preferred the redevelopment funding had been used for an alternative venue but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that the only one body has benefited from the redevelopment and they act as de facto owners of the stadium during the lease period.

Embarassed that it's taken a cod-heid to articulate the scenario far better than any QP fan (including myself) to date. Fancy representing us in the forthcoming negotiations, as I'd trust you to get a better deal than we currently look likely to achieve?

[Hampden Diehard]

12 hours ago, Grant228 said:

As mentioned, should the SFA value Queens Park above everyone else, including the fans? No. 

Type "The SFA value the fans." with a straight face.  Go on, try it.  Or give a couple of instances.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Hampden debate, I don't think anyone can honestly say that the SFA value the fans, so please don't state that in any argument.  We're here to be fleeced; I've been getting fleeced for over 50 years....sadly, I love going to see the national side so much I'll just be grinning and bearing it until I'm deid.

Hampden has given the SFA a worldwide relevance that the FAs of other smaller nations don't have....and that's down to the people who built it.  QP shouldn't get preferential treatment, but a sense of fairness wouldn't go amiss.  Shafting us for the sake of it shouldn't be on.

Personally I'd sell the place tomorrow rather than turn it over to the turnips at the SFA.  Then you could all troop through to Murrayfield with its pish views from the back of the massive stands and the road / rail network that will f**k you up more than Hampden's ever did. Ask rugby fans how easy it is for 80,000 to get away from Murrayfield in a hurry.

[tree house tam]

8 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Ask rugby fans how easy it is for 80,000 to get away from Murrayfield in a hurry.

It holds under 68,000  so that's a whole lot of c***s watching in the local pubs. Time to look into buying a pub around Haymarket me thinks.

[The Spider]

2 hours ago, tree house tam said:

It holds under 68,000  so that's a whole lot of c***s watching in the local pubs. Time to look into buying a pub around Haymarket me thinks.

aye, but your not taking account that he's old enough to remember that Murrayfield used to have crowds of 100k+ back in the 70s - sadly HD's living in the past, as old Jethro used to say

[HoBNob]

10 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Type "The SFA value the fans." with a straight face.  Go on, try it.  Or give a couple of instances.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Hampden debate, I don't think anyone can honestly say that the SFA value the fans, so please don't state that in any argument.  We're here to be fleeced; I've been getting fleeced for over 50 years....sadly, I love going to see the national side so much I'll just be grinning and bearing it until I'm deid.

Hampden has given the SFA a worldwide relevance that the FAs of other smaller nations don't have....and that's down to the people who built it.  QP shouldn't get preferential treatment, but a sense of fairness wouldn't go amiss.  Shafting us for the sake of it shouldn't be on.

Personally I'd sell the place tomorrow rather than turn it over to the turnips at the SFA.  Then you could all troop through to Murrayfield with its pish views from the back of the massive stands and the road / rail network that will f**k you up more than Hampden's ever did. Ask rugby fans how easy it is for 80,000 to get away from Murrayfield in a hurry.

Business babeh, they'll continue to try get it for the lowest price that they can, that's as fair as you can hope for. 

 

I'd be happy enough with Murrayfield, cheers though. 

[Hampden Diehard]

aye, but your not taking account that he's old enough to remember that Murrayfield used to have crowds of 100k+ back in the 70s - sadly HD's living in the past, as old Jethro used to say

Cheeky b*****d! But true.....

Anyway, Facebook have a great wee montage if you're interested....bash in The Hampden Collection.

And, no, I can't post the link.....beyond the capability of my arthritic hands and brain.

[The Spider]

you'll get used to this copy and paste thingummyjig one day faither https://www.facebook.com/TheHampdenCollection/

 

 

[BucksburnDandy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5563873/Queens-Park-attempt-sell-Hampden-Scottish-FA-i.html

[Goalie Hamish]

If the SFA buy Hampden could it be the first step towards redevelopment?