Jump to content

Welcome Queen's Park


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 13 May 2018 at 09:31, Bring Your Own Socks said:

You're confused. The Debentures don't run past 20 years. Other things might be but this isn't the place to discuss them. 

It's been called GCC since 1996.  City, not District. 

The SFA are doing what they think is the right thing to do for their business. QP needs to stop whining about the past and take them on. To paraphrase top comedian Bridges, they are shitting in our kettle. Time to man up. Nobody owes us anything.

Fully agree with you that this isn't the place to discuss the semantics of what the remaining 20 year period does or doesn't relate to, and thanks for highlighting my nostalgic remembrances of good 'ol GDC no longer apply.

Whilst I'm all for our Committee growing a pair for their forthcoming negotiations. In high stakes games of poker I believe it's wise not to bluff especially when you have a shit-poor hand that everyone else around the table has already seen, but I'd love to hear the logic behind your bravado posture, or for once is there some strategy and substance behind your statement?

On 13 May 2018 at 09:32, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Image result for gif multiple car crash

Pleased that you've found yourself a hobby to keep yourself amused over the summer. 50 years ago I was more of a Hornby man myself,but if you still get enjoyment from your Scaletrix then good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2018 at 14:16, The Spider said:

The answer to your first question is either

a) the QP negotiator was an idiot or naive or both

To be fair to the QP committee of the time the terms of the agreement were dictated by Sam Galbraith and the Labour administration of the time, and we had two choices - take or leave it. One option left us in business, the other  one didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JT1867 said:

To be fair to the QP committee of the time the terms of the agreement were dictated by Sam Galbraith and the Labour administration of the time, and we had two choices - take or leave it. One option left us in business, the other  one didn't.

That's a very fair observation JT but something that was drummed into me at an early stage in my career was to ensure that anything contentious should be put in writing to avoid a lack of clarity at a later stage. I  keep being told that there was no reason to believe that the SFA would not renew the 20 year lease, so hindsight not withstanding it would have been prudent to build in a penalty clause linked to the debentures thereby removing some of the risk we now face.

If we tried that at the time then fair enough, but the tone of the President's lengthy written communication to Members suggests to me that the situation we are now in could have been avoided had we been a little bit less naive in the original negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Spider said:

Whilst I'm all for our Committee growing a pair for their forthcoming negotiations. In high stakes games of poker I believe it's wise not to bluff especially when you have a shit-poor hand that everyone else around the table has already seen, but I'd love to hear the logic behind your bravado posture, or for once is there some strategy and substance behind your statement?

It's nothing to do with bravado, just business logic and realism. Carping on about how nasty the Big Bad SFA are isn't the right thinking. And it's too late for strategical thinking, we're in the tactical phase now.

I'm sure the committee, current and future, will do their best but being nice chaps won't get us through this with a good return. The starting point should be the assets (the land value, not the 'going concern' book value) minus liabilities( cost of demolition) = net assets (cash at the bank). I've not seen even a notion, nevermind any detailed assessment, of how that would tally up but my rough sums indicate £8m. If the SFA are offering £2m there's plenty of scope for negotiation. As for the debts; TNS gets wound-up, and the other biggy gets revisited. The PR outcome of a national organisation who 'works for communities' being the cause of Hampden being lost to football would be too much for them to gamble on. What would they have to gain? 

As for Murrayfield, the Doc says it's viable but since then the SFA have said Hampden is their favoured option. Of course it is, the SRU is a well-run organisation. They'll treat the kickball as a bit extra income but the SFA will never have the ability to exploit the potential there like it would at their own place in Glasgow.

It's a special kind of skillset, and mindset, to stare out negotiations for millions of pounds. Maybe the committe might realise it doesn't all have to be on their shoulders and they could dip into a wider pool of skills that might be available within the QP community. We're stronger than you seem to think but planning and understanding your opponent is critical.  What's their buying motive? What's in it for them? 

As for your poker analogy, the only time to bluff is when you have shit-poor hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very cohesive and fair response BYOS, but below the 10,000 word count you seem to think is de rigueur for discussing major issues on this thread. I feel two comments are pertinent here.

Firstly if you or anyone else feels they have the necessary skills to aid the Committee then they should make that known to them. Secondly, as I already indicated above, what's the point of bluffing when the other people around the table have already seen your hand? If you think we have a joker hidden up our sleeves, then you are obviously party to more information than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...