Ben Reilly

Each stadium/building site is different. It's likley not up to the club whether can attand games while work is carried out. That would be decided i assume by the HSE and/or whoever does the saftey certificates etc. We also dont know the duration of the works, so it may not be as simple as a run of away games and do it over a cup weekend. If it takes months then we can't play away the whole time as that would mess up the fixture list for everyone, and it's unlikley the SFA or SPFL would allow that. Just because plenty other clubs have done it doesn't mean if would work in this case. I am in no way trying to defend the incompetence of the folk running QP. However, we are where we are now and nothing you or I think is right or wrong about it will change anything. Personally, I'm delighted with the situation as I can see home games in the Southside again. If you choose to be upset about it then that's entirely up to you.

As has happened in the past, there's nothing to stop Edinburgh clubs negotiating with the SRU about using Murrayfield while work is carried out on their own stadium. The only difference here is that QP have something to offer the SFA as a bargaining chip (use of Lesser for training etc) where Edinburgh City perhaps don't have anything to entice the SRU. Clearly we don't have to "suck it up for a year" as we won't be playing at Lesser after September. The answer to your question about Lesser being suitable in August and not September is clearly laid out in the post you quoted me from.

A couple of pre season friendlies would tick the box for test events, so I don't see that being an issue. (Quite prepared to have this spectacularly blow up in my face if/when the next disappointing announcement comes along)

It has been stated by others on here already today, but all the fans of other teams complaining about "how unfair" this (admittedly strange) stadium situation is, are clearly not actually paying any attention to the facts. Lesser Hampden will be suitable to play games at this season, but not with a capacity that would be acceptable for either home or away supports. Lesser can't be expanded while it is being used regularly for games. It will need to be closed to the public for a number of months while construction work is ongoing. The amount of time required to carry out this construction work is longer than the summer break between seasons, so there will never be a time when the work can be done without effecting part of at least one football season. Putting up temporary stands would be a quick fix, but would then further lengthen the time required for the building of a permanent stand, as the temporary one would need to be removed first. Training by the various QP and Scotland men's, women's and youth teams can still take place during any construction work as there will be no public access to those events. This will also include the other things like referee training etc that are mentioned in the statement. Our registered ground for the entirety of the coming season is 'big' Hampden Due to work required to relay the pitch at Hampden we need to move our games somewhere else while the work is carried out. This temporary stadium to play our home games at until our registered ground is available could be anywhere, but none of the options are ideal for various reasons (capacity, clash with other teams, distance for traveling supporters etc). Therefore we have picked the 'least worst' option in Lesser. As soon as our registered ground is ready, we will play there for the remainder of the season. We may then choose an entirely different stadium as our registered ground the following season. E.g. a completed Lesser Hampden with a reasonable capacity for home and away fans. None of the above is any different from, for hypothetical example, Motherwell wanting to build a new stand, choosing to register to play at Broadwood for a season while the work is carried out. Broadwood being unavailable for a few weeks while a new pitch is laid, so Motherwell play at Fir Park until Broad wood is ready then play there till the end of the season. And the most important fact of all, - no matter how upset fans of other teams are by this whole saga, QP fans are far more pissed off about it than you'll ever be. If any away fans are unhappy about the perception that we'll be coining it in by playing at big Hampden, how many people do you really think will be at those games. Given we tried to give Dundee as few tickets as possible for our final home league game of the season, are we really likely to sell 8000 to Dundee Utd or Partick Thistle to then out number our own support of (optimistically, with loads of free tickets given away to school kids) 3,500? If you are really that upset, don't buy a ticket when your team are playing us at Hampden. That will stop us making as much money from playing there. The other option is we play at Lesser, and you still don't buy a ticket as there aren't any available for you.

Big Love for all these Buckingham theories.

I've just finished listening to the most recent episode of The Spiders Talk Podcast. I don’t use Twitter, but I know the guys involved are all on here, so I wanted to say a massive well done and an even bigger thank you to all three of you. I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to each and every episode, and look forward to it every week, as I crave some sort of fix for QP content between games. Selfishly, I wish there were more than one episode each week (though obviously I understand that's not realistic). I dont come into contact with many other Queens fans during the week who I can chat to about the games etc, so listening in to the chats on the podcast feels like the next best thing. I generally find I agree with most of what is said, and enjoy the fact that while it's obviously a QP podcast, the guys are always very fair in praise their for the other teams, and criticism of our own team and club where relevant. So thank you so much for giving up your time to put in the effort required for each episode for no reward. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to the next episode.

I agree that would be a great use for the land, however the upcoming takeover of the Glagow Club facility at Holyrood is where all the community stuff will be based.

Arbroath took 4 points from their 2 Friday night games at Ochilview this season. Not much of a disadvantage really was it?

Well that just makes the whole situation even more frustrating.

That's why I put it in 'quotes'

Yes but then the 'directors' would have to mix with the common folk.

I believe that because the new directors stand is elevated it would block the view of part of the pitch for anyone on that side.

Nothing, but it means we now have 2 hospitality spaces (1st and 2nd class) and therefore more income from hospitality.

They claim that the newly built hospitality suite attached to the directors stand, which can be rented out for functions etc will bring in more revenue than ticket sales for football matches. They may be right, but we're a football club, that plays football matches, and now that we're in the Championship we don't have enough space for all the people that want to buy tickets.

The more I think about it the more I fear that we might have to rely on the other clubs voting the proposal down and sparing the QP fans blushes.

I saw the proposal, or at least part of it, posted either on here or on twitter somewhere, but I can't remember where to link to it. (I realise that's not very helpful, sorry) It has been sent to all the clubs to look over it prior to a vote next month. I'm sure it included mentions of promotion and relegation to/from both League 2 and the HL/LL. From memory the B teams can't go up or down. The winner (or highest placed non b team) plays off with 10th in League 2. Bottom get relegated and replaced by winner of HL/LL playoff. 2nd bottom plays off against the loser of HL/LL playoff. I think I'm remembering that correctly, but someone who knows more about it may correct me.

My reading of the email shared here was that they had already made their mind up and it confirmed the rumour was true. If they were against B teams then I would have expected the tone of that email to be very different. I hope your right though.

The benefits are that our young players get to play against, what in theory at least, is a higher standard of opposition which aids there development. Sadly as the "best" reserve/B teams in the country (I.e. the old firm) refuse to be part of the current reserve league, and are pushing for inclusion in the pyramid, if we want to play against them competitively then we would also need to join them in the conference league. I am absolutely against B teams in the pyramid, and the problem wouldn't exist if all teams agreed to be part of a reserve league, however as that looks unlikley, I do understand why Beuker would be keen for our inclusion in the Conference League. A lot of the opposition to this from most people in Scottish football is, quite rightly, because no one else feels they should have to do things just to suit the old firm and how they want to develop their young players. I would assume that Bueker, not being from Scotland and therefore not being so bothered/aware of the Old Firm stranglehold, and coming from a country where B teams in the 2nd tier is the norm, doesn't see any of that as a problem as long as it improves QP. The reality is that Bueker and Dempster are employed to do the best thing for QP going forward, not for Scottish football. You could make a reasonable argument that in this instance, they are doing their job by trying to create the best opportunities for our young players to develop. Most of us as fans, despite obviously supporting our own clubs, have a wider view where we still want the best for Scottish football as a whole, but that doesn't seem to fit with the clubs goals going forward.

I'm more of the opinion that members should NOT resign, but should make their voices heard when the committee come up for re-election.

Thanks. Reading between the lines that probably means the rumour is true that we want to enter a B Team and that they have no interest in the supporters/members opinion on the matter.

Is that a genuine direct response from the club to a recent email regarding entry to the conference league?

While Bannon has tended to be played at the back, I believe he has played his youth career as a centre mid. Will he be considered as an option there next season rather than further back. A lot will probably depend on how the new manager assesses the squad.

I think we need another left back too. I like Robson, but our only cover (and his only competition) is a 17 year old with very little game time. Robson started almost every game this season (and last) but if he had gotten injured it would have been a big concern.

Just had a look at the 1st team squad page club website and I see that along with Coyle, both Sandy Stewart and Owen Coyle jnr have been removed. Not surprised that Stewart would go with Coyle as they've been together for years. I had wondered whether Coyle jnr would have stayed on, but looks like he's away too.

I'd tend to agree with you, bar one major issue, and that's that I would imagine he's all for us having a B Team in the pyramid. I hope I'm wrong, but it would seem to be right up his street. To be fair to him, I can fully understand why he would want it. As stated in my previous post, his job is to develop the strategy for young players coming through to the first team and being sold for profit. B teams playing competitive matches against the highest possible opposition is obviously a big help with this. He also comes from a country where b teams are in their 2nd tier, so he probably doesn't see it as anything out of the ordinary. I fear he may be one of those at the club pushing for us joining the conference league.