The Queen of the South thread

[qos_75]

5 minutes ago, FrankReynolds said:

They wouldn’t. But if the SLO took it serious then they’d have appointed a successor 

Why, would they appoint anyone else just to be ignored?

[FrankReynolds]

9 minutes ago, qos_75 said:

Why, would they appoint anyone else just to be ignored?

My point is if they took it serious and thought the link worked then they’d have appointed someone else but they didn’t so that tells us it’s own story. 

[qos_75]

Fair enough. I think I got the wrong end of the stick with your comment.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

The SLO thing was introduced after the Queens Trust tried to get a seat on the board. The Trust were unsuccessful, in part no doubt to lies put out by the board at the time about the viability of that measure. Given the board's opposition to fan representation in the boardroom, I doubt they ever had any intention of the SLO making any meaningful contribution to life at Palmerston Park. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Priti priti priti Patel

[Seeker]

50 minutes ago, FrankReynolds said:

Looks like their following the board by telling us nothing. 

They’ve just told you that they’ve resigned. I don’t think the board have said this 

 

 

yet.

[die hard doonhamer]

I thought the SLO position was a licensing requirement? I thought we had to have one

[19QOS19]

But it is. The board tell us sweet f*** all and the SLO were meant to be a link between supporters and the club but tbh I haven’t seen much of a link between them through the SLO. They share Facebook posts from other QoS Facebook pages and that’s about it. If the SLO did take the link between fans and club serious then they’d have sorted someone else coming in to replace them. The board obviously doesn’t take them serious and that’s where the issues lie. 

They wouldn’t. But if the SLO took it serious then they’d have appointed a successor 

My point is if they took it serious and thought the link worked then they’d have appointed someone else but they didn’t so that tells us it’s own story. 

The story it's telling me is that the BoD are exactly the same as they were years ago and don't want the fans knowing anything. The SLO have clearly thrown in the towel as they are getting nothing to report on.

If you as a fan are happy with the lack of information from within the club that's your prerogative and I have no right to say you're wrong. Hundreds of others are clearly fed up with it though and are doing the talking with the walking. Sadly I doubt even that is going to change things though.

The only time we seem to hear from our BoD is when they have the begging bowl out or they are trying and making an arse of apologising for another f**k up.

[FrankReynolds]

3 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

The story it's telling me is that the BoD are exactly the same as they were years ago and don't want the fans knowing anything. The SLO have clearly thrown in the towel as they are getting nothing to report on.

If you as a fan are happy with the lack of information from within the club that's your prerogative and I have no right to say you're wrong. Hundreds of others are clearly fed up with it though and are doing the talking with the walking. Sadly I doubt even that is going to change things though.

The only time we seem to hear from our BoD is when they have the begging bowl out or they are trying and making an arse of apologising for another f**k up.

I’m not. I’m far from happy about the lack of information from the club. No idea where you pulled that from. 

[19QOS19]

I’m not. I’m far from happy about the lack of information from the club. No idea where you pulled that from. 

Because, intentionally or not, it seems like you're having a pop more at the SLO than the BoD.

[Guest Flash]

51 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said:

I thought the SLO position was a licensing requirement? I thought we had to have one

It is a requirement for a Gold or Silver Licence, I think. Had a quick run through the SFA stuff and the SPFL Rules and I don’t think moving from a Silver to a Bronze Licence on that point makes any difference (but I’m not 100% sure on that). The SPFL Rules refer to the SFA Licensing stadium standards but nothing else (as far as I can see).

Another thing I’m not sure about is that Section 1.2 of the SFA Club Licensing Manual (on page 4) says 

“Scottish Professional Football League (Premiership) Clubs – both the National and UEFA Club Licensing systems are applicable.”

The UEFA Club Licensing Article 35 on page 105 says clubs must have an SLO, so that suggests we might not be allowed in the Premiership without one. Gutted that this season’s promotion bid could be over. However, all is not lost because the top of that section says

“The following requirements refer to the UEFA criteria where any failure does not result in the refusal of the UEFA licence award but rather a sanction to be determined by the Scottish FA”. 

So, it looks like having an SLO is not a requirement of being in the Premiership. 

Tl;dr looks like it moves a club from Silver to Bronze but that it doesn’t make any difference. But it might.

SFA Club Licensing Manual

 

[Mustafa_sheet]

2 hours ago, qos_75 said:

As someone else said the other day. We are slipping back into another Harkness age. 

There ain’t no “slipping” about it…….we have “slipped”!

[Mustafa_sheet]

2 hours ago, FrankReynolds said:

But it is. The board tell us sweet f*** all and the SLO were meant to be a link between supporters and the club but tbh I haven’t seen much of a link between them through the SLO. They share Facebook posts from other QoS Facebook pages and that’s about it. If the SLO did take the link between fans and club serious then they’d have sorted someone else coming in to replace them. The board obviously doesn’t take them serious and that’s where the issues lie. 

Maybe Skyline should put himself and his blue tinted specs forward for the role.

Just like the board…… when the going gets tough they’re no where to be seen!

[lowland star]

Been reading a lot on here . A thought came to me regards the shares In club who owns them . I also knows shares can not be sold without bod permission I am led to believe. 
does anyone know the answer to list 

[19QOS19]

Been reading a lot on here . A thought came to me regards the shares In club who owns them . I also knows shares can not be sold without bod permission I am led to believe. 
does anyone know the answer to list 

I'm sure Davie Rae is still the majority shareholder. No idea about the rest.

[the_palmy_pie]

3 hours ago, FrankReynolds said:

They wouldn’t. But if the SLO took it serious then they’d have appointed a successor 

That’s for Queens to find not the now former SLO’s. Don’t hold your breath though. 

[the_palmy_pie]

34 minutes ago, lowland star said:

Been reading a lot on here . A thought came to me regards the shares In club who owns them . I also knows shares can not be sold without bod permission I am led to believe. 
does anyone know the answer to list 

Whatever happened to the shares the Queens Trust raised money for and tried to buy in January ? Did this procedure ever happen ? 

[the_palmy_pie]

3 hours ago, FrankReynolds said:

Looks like their following the board by telling us nothing. 

That’s probably because the board told them and us nothing. 

[TERREGLES1919]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

I'm sure Davie Rae is still the majority shareholder. No idea about the rest.

Rae has nearly 40000 shares

Hewitson has nearly 10000 shares 

[Monkey Tennis]

When the club resisted the notion of fan representation a few years ago, the stance was bafflingly, widely supported on here.

[palmy_cammy]

13 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

I'm sure Davie Rae is still the majority shareholder. No idea about the rest.

I wonder if he could be the key to turning things around?  Of course he was far from flawless as Chairman himself, but he is endlessly positive and never shy of doing an interview or media appearance.  Those two things alone would be a massive improvement on the current regime, plus his connection with the Scottish Cup final era might be enough to rekindle a bit of love for those that have lost it in recent times.

I have absolutely no idea how viable that would be, a) because of his age and b) because I have absolutely zero understanding of how a board is formed or a chairman is elected.

I'm probably clutching at straws but it just seems incredibly unlikely that any outside investment is going to come into the club so perhaps the best chance of shaking things up comes from someone already inside the club?  I doubt a completely clean break with all of the current board leaving is viable or even sensible however much it feels like something we all want to happen.  But Davie Rae as the figure head replacing the universally disliked Hewitson would be a start even if the latter was still involved.  Perhaps with a longer term goal of these guys moving on and being replaced by some "fresh blood" and a proper succession plan for replacing Rae.

 

11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

When the club resisted the notion of fan representation a few years ago, the stance was bafflingly, widely supported on here.

I was one of those that was against the idea, and I think my main reasons for it still ring true.  Again I'm perhaps showing my naivety as to how a board is formed and what their purpose is, but to me the role of supporters and the role of board members are very different and there isn't a lot of overlap.

It goes without saying that the relationship between the board and the fans is absolutely vital and at present is probably the biggest danger to the clubs very existence, but I'm not sure putting fans on the board is the solution to this.  There are countless ways for a football club to engage with its supporters without electing them to the board.  Unfortunately the club chooses not to do any of them.