Ben Reilly
-
Posts
600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ben Reilly
-
-
3 minutes ago, GloriousHoops said:
There is no acceptable reason whatsoever that STs should not have access to the comfy seats.
That'll be it then, nae chance
The impression I got from the meeting was that we won't get much say in it. It will depend on what the SFA allow us to use.
It may also be that they reserve the comfy seats for folk in hospitality etc.
0 -
7 hours ago, Zanetti said:
Unless I'm misreading the ticket information away fans aren't going to be allowed in the terrace on Saturday? If that's the case then a lot of the appeal of Arbroath away is out the window straight away.
The article about Arbroath tickets on the QP website says the following, so hopefully we will sell enough tickets in advance to get part of the terracing.
Queen’s Park fans will be housed in sections A and B of the Main (Coel Brew) Stand with the option of adding tickets in Section C if A&B sell out.. If all stand tickets are sold there will be an option of terracing tickets being made available.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Spidersmad said:
Yep, I bought my first season ticket around 2004 and ST holders could definitely use the comfy seats. I'm sure it was stated explicitly when the club sent out notification to renew. In fact as a season ticket holder I would occasionally buy comfy seat tickets for a couple of friends in one of the rooms off to the side of the centre stand reception area . I kept using the centre stand right up to 2020 and usually sat in the same seat with much the same people round about me. Except for the time I arrived to find Mixu Paatelainen in my usual seat!
When I first started attending occaisional games (pay at the gate) the group I went with all sat in the comfy seats. They were all ST holders, and not members. We never had any problems sitting there. The stewards checked you had a season ticket, but not a membership, and I just said I was with them and there were no issues.
In fact if you entered via the main entrance (rather than the turnstiles) and bought a ticket at the wee table in reception, that ticket got you into the comfy seats too.
However, it could well be different this time round. At the two games we played last December I don't believe the comfy seats were available. I seem to remember that the question was asked about this, and the tea room, at the members meeting a month or so ago, and at that point they didn't know what the setup would be, but suggested it may be similair to the December games.
2 -
5 hours ago, Anonymous Spider said:
Great highlights. We’re well on track to scoring some very sexy goals this season…
Didn’t realise quite how far out of position Tizzard was for the goal - not even close to playing him offside. Hooked straight away and looked to me like he huffed straight into dressing room. One to watch there.
I was sitting right in line with him at the time and noticed it straight away, he seemed to just be ball watching as they broke forward and played the number 14 miles onside. Then neither he or McPherson either looked to see where the number 9 was until it was too late and he was getting his shot away.
I did wonder if that's why he was subbed as I hadn't noticed Bannon getting ready beforehand.
I'm sure this will be highlighted when they watch it back, and they'll learn from it and be more aware the next time.
Other than that, it was a very encouraging performance all round.
2 -
1 hour ago, an86 said:
I’m hoping it’s sit where you want. At very least, if we’re doing designated sections, I’d hope we could try and get something organised where we can get a bit of atmosphere going. Folk are a bit spread out at Lesser and it tends to be the same for well attended games at Hampden.
The season ticket cards have the block and seat number for Lesser printed on them. Below that it says 'Hampden Park - Unallocated' so I'm assuming that means sit where you want. Ixm expecting it to be similair to the two games we played there last December.
Slightly worried about the lack of atmosphere in the big ground. Ochilview and Lesser over the last year have been great to be so close to the pitch, and you feel that there is a bit of a bond growing with the players/coaching staff (even the newer arrivals) with the close proximity at goal celebrations and as they leave the pitch. It was great seeing all the kids down at the tunnel at Ochilview high fiving players etc.
Even if folk sit nearer the front at Hampden than we used to, there's still a huge distance to the pitch, so I fear that link with the players will be harder to maintain.
Hopefully, there will be a joint effort of us as supporters creating an atmosphere and from the players to get as close as they can to engage with us.
10 -
15 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:
Someone must have seen your post. It's been updated now on the website.
2 -
10 minutes ago, Arachnophile said:
Caught on camera
0 -
20 hours ago, Skeletar Spider said:
If he is away, then I can only assume we're close to bringing another striker in. Even if Veldman does rate McLeish, that leaves us with just one back-up to Paton - or two if you count former Our Lady of the Missions Primary star Rocco Hickey-Fugaccia - which is asking for trouble.
I overheard part of a conversation in the stand on Saturday involving someone close to Scott. If I heard it correctly, they mentioned that he was due to have gone out on loan already (i didnt hear mention of where to), but we postponed it as we are still working on bringing in someone else.
Don't take that as gospel, as admittedly I could have picked something up wrong, as I was trying to look like I wasn't listening
0 -
8 minutes ago, Velvet Donkey said:
Yes. I believe we are the second row, not the first.
Let's just hope we remember that in a years time, given our recent history of ineligible players in cup competition
3 -
1 hour ago, Pie Of The Month said:
McBookie have opened up their top goalscorer market now.
They must know something we don't, as Savoury is likley to miss most of the season through injury.
Hope they're right about Paton though
0 -
38 minutes ago, QP MAD said:
Thought Turner has been terrific..does so much running and I think he has the little bit of dig that we need …did not understand why he was taken off on Saturday
I agree, I've been impressed with Turner so far. A few slack passes admittedly, but the good has outweighed the bad.
1 -
1 hour ago, bridgeofweirdo said:
I expect to see Calum back in goal after Callan cost us a goal...
The more I've watched Callan's 'mistake' back, the more I think the fault lies with the poor pass back to him that was played between him and the attacker, and in line with the goal, rather than to the side of the goal like every other pass was all afternoon.
I'm not singling Bannon out for criticism, as I rate him highly, just defending Callan a bit. That said Callan could have just put his foot through it first time.
Either way, it's perhaps no bad thing for either of them to make that kind of error in a competitive, but largely unimportant game (we were out the cup anyway), and learn from it there rather than have it cost us league points.
3 -
1 hour ago, an86 said:
Meh. Pretty even first half, they probably had a couple of the best chances and we hit the woodwork twice. Sending off looked a clear cut red to me and it’s going to be a struggle from there.
Getting ourselves into good areas and either being too hesitant or picking the wrong option. Set pieces were, to put it mildly, shite. Early days, right enough, but obvious areas we need to improve.
No idea what the Paton penalty was for. Perhaps someone in the Royal Box with a good view of the game might be able to enlighten us? Looked a great finish from Healy as well.
Not a great League Cup campaign, but it’s rare to look back at anything relevant to the league season ever happening in these games.
From where I was sitting I didn't think the Fox incident was a foul. Looked like he got the ball which then hit off their player towards the stand. He may have then followed through to make contact with their player, but at worst it was a yellow.
I also thought we were denied two clear penalties. Though no guarantee we'd have scored those either.
I of course reserve the right to change my opinion on all of the above once the highlights are posted
3 -
9 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:
I popped in for a pint just to check it out. Choice of beers, prices and decor all say city centre to me rather than a social club. Aimed at the revenue-earning party nights rather than a fans pre-match favourite. Atmosphere was dead. Fortunately there are better choices available nearby.
Like all QP fans, my loyalties to my favourite football team have been tested on many, many occasions but I keep coming back. But after recent events, my support for the Club is being stretched to snapping point.
There is nothing on the walls at all to identify it as a Queens Park club. The closest thing is a QP badge on the Tennents tap.
What's happened to all the squad pictures, and kits. Especially sad to see the donors wall gone. Got my Father in laws name put on one of the boards for his 80th birthday just as the pandemic started (at a not insignificant cost) but it's nowhere to be seen.
8 -
1 hour ago, Dumfries Boy(new acc) said:
Bought a ticket for Saturdays game this morning as a away fan but no email been sent with tickets as of yet? Does this process normally take time or is there anyone that can help? Have reference number etc and it’s not in junk. Thanks guys
If you have no joy with Spider Rico's suggestion then you can call the club office (business hours and phone number on club website) the staff are always very helpful and could arrange to have tickets re-sent to your email.
2 -
1 minute ago, qpfc said:
10 might be Savoury I feel
You could be right there.
0 -
1 hour ago, EaglesandSpiders said:
Looking at today's team, I guess we didn't sign that young right back after all. My gut feeling is that we're looking for a last-minute opportunity loanee.
A few gaps in the squad numbers, assuming that the numbers used today are for the season ahead. #2 (right back) and #10 (forward/playmaker?).
There could still be a few more signings/lians in the pipeline?
1 -
1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:
Yeh, we’ve done this numerous times. The SFA license requirements have been sliced and chopped by many fans of many clubs and as the original application was for the Bronze standard there is no requirement for seats anywhere in that stadium. It was said at the meeting that plans have been assessed for temporary stands at both ends, either or and both. But we can’t afford to build the south stand at the moment. Of course, we might gave been able to if we hadn’t spaffed a million quid on the aborted original contract.
A direct question was asked about “the west side of the stadium” and the answer was there’s no more work to be done there. Not no more planned, no more to be done. The entire west side.Another direct question was asked about how long the Hampden deal would be in place. Mumble, mumble, faff, faff. “I’ll be keeping close to our new friends across the road”. So a year, to be reviewed. If it suits the SFA.
Another direct question was asked about why it had taken 3.5 years to not yet complete the stadium. Response was a story about rocketing costs and black bricks that were on a long lead time. The costs rocketed late 21 and across 22. So if we’d built it to the original programme, no problem.
I could go on but the defensive behaviour of the committee guys, on every subject, plus their blanket denial of any failings led me to conclude thus:-
• there is no plan; we are completely in the grace of Willie Haughey
• the numbers given about revenues from members, ST and away fans made it very clear that away fans are the most important group to The President. The Hampden plan is all about increased revenue on the back of large away support. The example given for turnover if we had been playing the top six clubs this season makes it clear that’s how we survive.
• the short-term desperation of the committee is in conflict with the long-term plans for the first team
Just to be clear, the football part of this wasn’t discussed. Everyone involved on the operational side of the business was in Inverness. However Beuker and his team definitely have a plan. But the club’s business side, the leadership and administrators, are making it up on the spin and stuck in the nineteenth century. It’s been like that since we went pro you might say. The bigger problem now is that with each passing month we are more and more dependent on one wealthy man. That’s not what we voted for in 2019. We owned two grounds then, now only own one, have huge commitments and debt, can’t use the stadium we have and our biggest revenue target is fans of other teams. And it’s everyone else’s fault, nothing to do with the jolly old Queen’s.
If only those black bricks were available to make it all better.
Are we in debt? Who to? How much?
I'm not saying your wrong, just that I don't know about it.
My understanding was that the Lesser build was paid for by the money already received from the sale of Hampden. The playing budget is being taken care of, as was the arbitration fee.
Not sure where the Lochinch investment is coming from but possibly the same sources as above.
Obviously there are numerous other outgoings, but are these covered by normal income?
0 -
54 minutes ago, Moodster said:
You normally talk a lot of sense but is it really ' the most profitable option available ' the club demolished a 400 seater stand, which was just waiting to be extended to a bigger covered stand. This replacement box is just a vanity project, end of!
It's actually worse than that, as they had already made good progress with extending the existing stand only to change the design to include the directors box and have to rip it all up at an additional expense.
I dont know if it is the most profitable option, I'm just saying that my interpretation of the details I've been given is that the committee (or whoever makes the decisions these days) believe that it was the best option with the funds we had available.
I'm not trying to defend the committee or their decisions, I'm just sharing with others my understanding of what we were told at this weeks meeting regarding the reasons why we are where we are with the stadium(s) situation.
Again I don't necessarily agree with the way things have turned out, but as I don't have all the details of what has led to decisions being made, I can only piece together what I've been told and hope that those who are involved have made the right choices for the club going forward.
2 -
1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:
How has this absolute farce with Lesser come about? Who decided on the ridiculous, stupid layout? It's so short sighted and limiting and seems to go against everything else your club is saying.
Is the plan is to use Hampden anyway, what was the point in redeveloping Lesser, especially the ludicrous royal box monstrosity?
My reading of it is that once we sold Hampden and turned pro, we probably had no intention of playing at Hampden again (untill we win the Scottish Cup
) and I think we started out with the intention of developing Lesser into a stadium suitable for League 1, and then add to it as and when we could/needed to.
However, a combination of our relatively rapid rise through the leagues being quicker than anticipated, changes to the stadium design (some for the better, some not so much), various holdups with the build, the considerable rise in construction costs, our relationship with the SFA improving, and what we've built so far being an attractive asset to the SFA, have all led to where we are now.
Will it all work out for the best? Only time will tell.
0 -
1 hour ago, Arachnophile said:
So we built the "hospitality stand" because that generates more revenue than a stand with several hundred supporters?
How does that work when, as a result of Lesser's tiny capacity, we can't actually play our games there?
While you could undoubtedly make more money from gate receipts on the 20+ match days each season with 800 paying fans than you could with 40 guests, I believe their argument was that the hospitality stand/suite can be used to generate revenue throughout the week by using it for more than just match days.
They also mentioned that it has already helped to suitably impress potential sponsors into putting money into the club. I have no idea of how lucrative that can be on a regular basis so can't say whether it's more financially viable than a stand for more people.
Again, the ideal situation would have been to incorporate the hospitality facilities into a stand that could also seat regular supporters. But if the money wasn't available for that size of build, the decision seems to have been made based on the belief that what we have ended up with is the most profitable option available.
I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, or even that i'm happy with it, just that this is my understanding of why we are where we are.
0 -
13 hours ago, Grumpy Soo-sider said:
I was not convinced on the reasoning for the 'Lords Gallery'. The argument given could easily have been met within a larger structure accommodating many more. The west side of the ground is the prime viewing area for the stadium and to limit it's view to just 40 people is ridiculous.
I'm more of the opinion that a return to Hampden was the intention all along with Lesser being a "fall back" plan should things not work out in that regard. The excellent work of the team caused the committee major panic that forced our hand in the negotiations with the SFA. As a result, we're probably paying over the odds for the rent of Hampden for match days with the horror of us being promoted to the Premiership causing panic in the boardroom..
The sad thing is, we just don't know. I could be very wrong in my interpretation but the lack of information from the club just gives rise to wild theories on why certain action has taken place. The "commercial confidentiality" argument only goes so far.
I think you are probably right with a lot of the above, but as you say, we'll probably never know the full story.
1 -
1 hour ago, Tangled web said:
Scottish football needs all the revenue it can get. It would be crazy to turn away custom. It would not be difficult to come to an agreement with the SFA whereby they take all of the "excess income" as part of the rent
Yeah, thats a better suggestion, which would have the same effect on 'evening out our revenue while not limiting numbers in the stands.
However, it would be a bit of a sickener, after us having to accept a low ball offer from the SFA for our stadium, paying them to rent it back again, to then give them a sizeable portion the revenue generated by us playing there.
And there was me thinking a few years ago that going pro and redeveloping Lesser was going to make things simpler for us going forwards.
0 -
28 minutes ago, an86 said:
I just cannot see Hampden flying in the long term. If we end up in the top flight in the next few years, the scrutiny the SFA will come under for allowing us to gain a huge advantage over opponents in terms of gate receipts won’t stand up.
If we’re asked to present a logical reason for playing at Hampden Park, can we actually do it? I don’t mean simply saying “because we’ve done it before.” That’s not a reason. Not wanting to build your actual stadium because you want to cream it in from the one next door is not a valid reason. We should have an idea of what we want to look like and where we want to be by the end of the 2020s. We can’t even really answer that question for next summer. We continue to lay the road down in front of ourselves, whilst attempting to sprint down it at the same time.
I would far prefer we had a fit for purpose stadium of our own that would be big enough for top flight football.
However, the problem seems to be that we don't have the resources to build one. I accept that many other clubs would like to improve their stadium too, but can't afford it, so i'm not using our lack of suitable facilities as an argument for why we should be allowed to use Hampden in the long term.
However, if we are willing and able to rent Hampden from the SFA at an appropriate rate then I don't see that as a big problem. It just so happens that we have a facility and a locality that is a useful make weight in any rental agreement that other clubs don't have.
Spitballing an idea. If it ever came to it, to keep a more level playing field (no pun intended) with other clubs, then perhaps our capacity at Hampden could be capped at a similar level to other clubs in our division. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a compromise that could be reached if required?
0
The Big Queen's Park FC Thread
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
Yeah, 300 does seem unlikley, so we'll probably not get any terracing after all.