Jump to content

Welcome Queen's Park


Recommended Posts

image.png.bad7cda72c1de90e810e36e7b8eb3a19.png

image.png.65f3ac5cd4eff1eb21f38057903c51f0.png

Highly predictable, but keep 'em coming wee yun - only another 288 to go before you cease to be insignificant :lol::lol::lol:. Be a man and discuss your concerns or..................guess what's coming folks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 hours ago, The Spider said:

BC - All joking aside, I think you need to tread very careful there mate as you had two players on your books at the time with the same name, and I'm not convinced you've got the right one?

Not at the same time, they were 2 or 3 years apart and I heard about it before the 'second' arrived

Aside from all that, I think the SFA will buy Hampden, doubt they'll opt for Murrayfield somehow

Do you think your club would consider using the money to redevelop and return to what was your second home, the original Hampden which you sold to Third Lanark and they renamed it New Cathkin Park ?

It's been there for 51 years, never got planning permission for housing and unlikely to be granted anything other than for leisure / recreational use - presumably designated greenfield site

I'm sure it's council owned now and I doubt they'd mind having the maintenance costs taken off their hands, plus some cash would likely be welcome on assumption they're another complaining about cuts

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory's fine thanks, but at my age I appreciate your concern. Last time I checked, amateurs (£1 nominal SPFL requirement or otherwise) weren't due a minimum wage, but perhaps you have more legal experience in that area than me. I'm sure if we were guilty of anything untoward then both the League and the tax authorities would be down on us like a ton of bricks, but I doubt you are dumb enough to believe everything you read in the Daily Record. Nope, my mistake, you clearly are.

£1 ?
Aye right.
Was that the cost of the brown envelope ?
Btw I never buy the Record.
You seem to do a big bit of delving into Clyde FC.
As you think you yourself to be a far superior intellect to the rest of us
I’ll take your infatuation as a compliment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

Not at the same time, they were 2 or 3 years apart and I heard about it before the 'second' arrived

Aside from all that, I think the SFA will buy Hampden, doubt they'll opt for Murrayfield somehow

Do you think your club would consider using the money to redevelop and return to what was your second home, the original Hampden which you sold to Third Lanark and they renamed it New Cathkin Park ?

It's been there for 51 years, never got planning permission for housing and unlikely to be granted anything other than for leisure / recreational use - presumably designated greenfield site

I'm sure it's council owned now and I doubt they'd mind having the maintenance costs taken off their hands, plus some cash would likely be welcome on assumption they're another complaining about cuts

 

Ok, more than happy to take your word about your first sentence. Was he also also the one who got sent off in a game v QP at Shawfield for fighting Derek Wood on the touchline right in front of the dug-outs before Eddie Hunter "intervened" to pull them apart? My memory of events (there's a back-story) was it was that one.

I guess there are three Hampden possibilities.

1. They move to Murrayfield and we're royally f**ked because of the Debenture debts (when we sold them to help raise extra funds for the development the SFA gave no indication they would be reviewing things at their halfway stage, and if there's no big games at Hampden then we are left liable to repay them, but if as originally anticipated another 20 year lease had been agreed then they would have run their course, which is why the SFA are now being "commercially opportunistic"/"blackmailing c**ts" depending on one's viewpoint).

2.  They remain at Hampden and we retain Lesser Hampden with full use of all the car parks (they'll be lying empty on those days anyway!), which would be the easiest, most QP preferred and most cost-effective option.

3. They tell us it's the full 33 acres or nothing (why would they adopt that unecessary attitude when the quid pro-quo for letting us use the car parks would be to let them use Lesser on big game matchdays? unless of course they are just being c**tish for the sake of it!), in which case we have to completely vacate. That brings us back to your Cathkin (or Second Hampden as it's historically known) question. Emotionally I guess it would have a very similar attraction in the same way for many Clyde supporters if you ever returned to Shawfield. It's a nice space to build a new compact stadium, and right opposite Crosshill railway station, but my personal concerns would be a lack of nearby car parking, and since Third Lanark's demise I think there's new housing much nearer the site so how happy would those homeowners be at the prospect (+ the loss of associated children's playing area and dog walking space?)

However, and you raise a very good point there, if the land is council owned then I suspect that GDC would bend over backwards to help us with planning permission etc. as they are desparate to see Hampden retained for the revenue it brings to Glasgow as a whole (particularly city centre hotels, pubs and restaurants) when concerts are taken into account.

But if it's not any of the above scenarios, then I've no idea at all of where we would end up (do you need help with the rent at Broadwood by any chance?)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Clyde Man said:


£1 ? Aye right. Was that the cost of the brown envelope ?
Btw I never buy the Record.
You seem to do a big bit of delving into Clyde FC.
As you think you yourself to be a far superior intellect to the rest of us I’ll take your infatuation as a compliment.

Hurrah! He speaks!

£1 (it's not a figure I made up) was the amount that we had to put on the new players contracts after the SPFL came into formation as they weren't going to allow the previous amateur ones. Eventually HMRC got involved to ask "what the f**k's going on here" (those may not have been their exact words) and i believe there's now a suitable contract wording to keep everyone happy now in place. As it was a nominal contractual figure (a bit like Craig White buying Rangers for £1, I don't think it was ever even paid to the players............shocking I know, but we still have a constitution which would have frowned on such a payment).

From memory it was the Daily Record that made such a fuss of the whole £1 issue, so had you purchased that 9or whatever rag it was) then the whole £1 thing might have made more sense to you.

Not so much "delving" into Clyde FC"as being "made aware" of it - remember the "best man" comment? I also sat beside a Clyde fan at work for the best part of 10 years, and if I ever have to hear the full 15 minute story of how Clyde were cheated out of a Fairs City Cup place because UEFA's predecessor wouldn't accept that Clyde came from Rutherglen instead of Glasgow (apparently the halfway line at Shawfield was the boundary?) again, then I think topping myself would be a preferable alternative.

As for my so-called superior intellect, having a good education isn't a guide top how clever anyone is. Instead of your having a better idea of what I think than i do, ever considered it's an inferiority complex on your part that made you feel think way? Just saying!

Anything unfair or unreasonable in what I've said? If so. please feel free to send a red one to the usual address.

Footnote

Instead of taking the cream puff about the three option question I asked the_bully_wee, had you challenged me on it first before resorting to type and gone squealing to the milk monitor, I could have explained to you that on a different thread (http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/256405-stenhousemuir-vs-queens-park-queens-park-vs-stenhousemuir/&page=3) the_bully_wee had written an excellent post explaining his views on social justice, and why he felt Clyde were correct to take the stance they have with Flynn, Love & Goodwillie. It was clearly written from the heart, and whilst I didn't agree with everything he said it would have been remiss of me not to give him a greenie for his honesty, which I duly did.

Therefore the question I posed him with the three examples was simply a follow on to that, to see where on his scale he would put someone who stole from his friends and colleagues, which I rank amongst the lowest of the low. "TBW" answered the question in a sensible manner and took no offence, so why did you? If you accept you acted in haste and on reflection now regret that you did, then no problem and we'll move on with no harm done. If not, then the old Stanley Matthews' story (or someone of his ilk) comes into play.

Sir Stanley was incensed by a refereeing decision that he strongly disagreed with, and decided to hold the referee to account. Challenging him he asked, "if I were to call you a blithering idiot, what would you do?" "If you were to say that to me Mr. Matthews then I would have no recourse other than to send you off." "Okay, suppose I just thought that you were a blithering idiot instead?" "Well Mr. Matthews, there would be nothing I could do about that." "Fine! In that case I think you're a blithering idiot!"

'Nuff said?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites




1. They move to Murrayfield and we're royally f**ked because of the Debenture debts (when we sold them to help raise extra funds for the development the SFA gave no indication they would be reviewing things at their halfway stage, and if there's no big games at Hampden then we are left liable to repay them, but if as originally anticipated another 20 year lease had been agreed then they would have run their course, which is why the SFA are now being "commercially opportunistic"/"blackmailing c**ts" depending on one's viewpoint).



Can I ask why the debentures were sold without the certainty that the SFA contact would be in place for the full period?

Also, is it in the debenture contact that they get a refund?

Hopefully, it's resolved soon.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

Ok, more than happy to take your word about your first sentence. Was he also also the one who got sent off in a game v QP at Shawfield for fighting Derek Wood on the touchline right in front of the dug-outs before Eddie Hunter "intervened" to pull them apart? My memory of events (there's a back-story) was it was that one.

I guess there are three Hampden possibilities.

1. They move to Murrayfield and we're royally f**ked because of the Debenture debts (when we sold them to help raise extra funds for the development the SFA gave no indication they would be reviewing things at their halfway stage, and if there's no big games at Hampden then we are left liable to repay them, but if as originally anticipated another 20 year lease had been agreed then they would have run their course, which is why the SFA are now being "commercially opportunistic"/"blackmailing c**ts" depending on one's viewpoint).

2.  They remain at Hampden and we retain Lesser Hampden with full use of all the car parks (they'll be lying empty on those days anyway!), which would be the easiest, most QP preferred and most cost-effective option.

3. They tell us it's the full 33 acres or nothing (why would they adopt that unecessary attitude when the quid pro-quo for letting us use the car parks would be to let them use Lesser on big game matchdays? unless of course they are just being c**tish for the sake of it!), in which case we have to completely vacate. That brings us back to your Cathkin (or Second Hampden as it's historically known) question. Emotionally I guess it would have a very similar attraction in the same way for many Clyde supporters if you ever returned to Shawfield. It's a nice space to build a new compact stadium, and right opposite Crosshill railway station, but my personal concerns would be a lack of nearby car parking, and since Third Lanark's demise I think there's new housing much nearer the site so how happy would those homeowners be at the prospect (+ the loss of associated children's playing area and dog walking space?)

However, and you raise a very good point there, if the land is council owned then I suspect that GDC would bend over backwards to help us with planning permission etc. as they are desparate to see Hampden retained for the revenue it brings to Glasgow as a whole (particularly city centre hotels, pubs and restaurants) when concerts are taken into account.

But if it's not any of the above scenarios, then I've no idea at all of where we would end up (do you need help with the rent at Broadwood by any chance?)!

Aye, that was him

The way a move could possibly work to Cathkin.  Obviously the council could have a vested interest in it happening, especially if the idea sold to them is that it'll double as a community facility, all weather, loads of schools round there like Holyrood etc, public can rent, so it's available all week. Your club's got strong links with youth football anyway so that would all kind of tie up.

As for the locals, I don't know if there's any vandalism or fun n games or whatever at the place now, but if you built maybe a 2000 capacity, it'd at least then be a secure facility.  Neighbours know there'll very rarely if ever be large crowds there.  The area's very congested around Prospecthill Rd, so just do a deal to rent the existing car park at Hampden - it's empty most of the time anyway - 5 minute walk away.  It's not as if you're proposing removing the only bit of green space in the area, there's loads of parks just off Cathcart Rd.  Whether it was for communal use or not, I doubt there'd be that many objections, might even be the opposite if presented right. You're not even blocking out light as it's already underneath the level of Prospecthill.

That said, I know of a man a couple miles east of there who'd accept £1m now at a ready made facility, just needs a bit of a dust and hoover.....but you better no !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, haufdaft said:

Can I ask why the debentures were sold without the certainty that the SFA contact would be in place for the full period?

Also, is it in the debenture contact that they get a refund?

Hopefully, it's resolved soon.
 

The answer to your first question is either

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

b) there would have been a funding shortfall without the Debenture income so there wasn't really a choice

c) back then we had an excellent relationship with the SFA and at the time it would have taken some amount of foresight to imagine the changes in their structure and attitude since then, especially since the initial 20 year agreement included an option clause for the SFA to extend the deal for the remaining 20 years of the debenture period

but I'm not close enough to the process to tell you which one(s) of the above is the most accurate explanation.

As far as the debenture contract is concerned, that side of things is much clearer. It's contract basis was preferential options on major events (including concerts) for 40 years, so if Hampden closes regardless of who is responsible then QP's subsidiary co. is legally in breach of contract. Thereafter it's more muddy. Could QP do the dishonourable thing and liquidate the subsidiary? How many of the debenture holders would just shrug their shoulders, say "c'est la vie" and not look for compensation. Would the SFA's generosity extend to negotiate a 20 year-ticket option for those people at Murrayfield instead? Haven't a scooby is my answer to those questions I'm afraid.

As you kindly say though, it would be good if it was resolved one way or another soon so that the uncertainty isn't hanging over our heads before the start of next season (I well recall how twitchy some of your supporters were when the Shawfield mark II / Rutherglen Glencairn / Shettleston Juniors / East Kilbride party was in full swing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrigtonClyde said:

The way a move could possibly work to Cathkin.  Obviously the council could have a vested interest in it happening, especially if the idea sold to them is that it'll double as a community facility, all weather, loads of schools round there like Holyrood etc, public can rent, so it's available all week. Your club's got strong links with youth football anyway so that would all kind of tie up.

I don't suppose you would like to run for QP Committee by any chance?

1 hour ago, BrigtonClyde said:

As for the locals, I don't know if there's any vandalism or fun n games or whatever at the place now, but if you built maybe a 2000 capacity, it'd at least then be a secure facility.  Neighbours know there'll very rarely if ever be large crowds there.

But surely 2k wouldn't be big enough to accomodate your travelling support in a title-winning season........should that ever happen:unsure:

 

1 hour ago, BrigtonClyde said:

That said, I know of a man a couple miles east of there who'd accept £1m now at a ready made facility, just needs a bit of a dust and hoover.....but you better no !

And you were doing so well too, until that toxic comment! I used to play for a QP supporters team at Burnhill Sports Centre on the red blaze pitch for a few seasons. We turned up one Sunday to find it was all cordoned off. Came as a bit of a shock when we found out why.  Remember how much grit you would get in your thigh or knee from a fall or slide tackle (nothing that a wire brush and Dettol wouldn't fix - but that's another story!), but as far as I know everybody in that team is still alive and kicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Spider said:

And you were doing so well too, until that toxic comment! I used to play for a QP supporters team at Burnhill Sports Centre on the red blaze pitch for a few seasons. We turned up one Sunday to find it was all cordoned off. Came as a bit of a shock when we found out why.  Remember how much grit you would get in your thigh or knee from a fall or slide tackle (nothing that a wire brush and Dettol wouldn't fix - but that's another story!), but as far as I know everybody in that team is still alive and kicking.

3 years ago when the area was still gettin prepped, they were clearing over the back of Arnold Clark's yard.  They dug a tunnel straight down then right along under Glasgow Rd all the way out to the river.  They filled small trollies full of that stuff and emptied it all straight out into the Clyde.

No seen rowers on there for a while right enough......:bag

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, BrigtonClyde said:

3 years ago when the area was still gettin prepped, they were clearing over the back of Arnold Clark's yard.  They dug a tunnel straight down then right along under Glasgow Rd all the way out to the river.  They filled small trollies full of that stuff and emptied it all straight out into the Clyde.

No seen rowers on there for a while right enough......:bag

 

but on the plus side it's much easier to catch Clyde salmon at night now though, seeing how they glow in the dark:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurrah! He speaks!
£1 (it's not a figure I made up) was the amount that we had to put on the new players contracts after the SPFL came into formation as they weren't going to allow the previous amateur ones. Eventually HMRC got involved to ask "what the f**k's going on here" (those may not have been their exact words) and i believe there's now a suitable contract wording to keep everyone happy now in place. As it was a nominal contractual figure (a bit like Craig White buying Rangers for £1, I don't think it was ever even paid to the players............shocking I know, but we still have a constitution which would have frowned on such a payment).
From memory it was the Daily Record that made such a fuss of the whole £1 issue, so had you purchased that 9or whatever rag it was) then the whole £1 thing might have made more sense to you.
Not so much "delving" into Clyde FC"as being "made aware" of it - remember the "best man" comment? I also sat beside a Clyde fan at work for the best part of 10 years, and if I ever have to hear the full 15 minute story of how Clyde were cheated out of a Fairs City Cup place because UEFA's predecessor wouldn't accept that Clyde came from Rutherglen instead of Glasgow (apparently the halfway line at Shawfield was the boundary?) again, then I think topping myself would be a preferable alternative.
As for my so-called superior intellect, having a good education isn't a guide top how clever anyone is. Instead of your having a better idea of what I think than i do, ever considered it's an inferiority complex on your part that made you feel think way? Just saying!
Anything unfair or unreasonable in what I've said? If so. please feel free to send a red one to the usual address.
Footnote
Instead of taking the cream puff about the three option question I asked the_bully_wee, had you challenged me on it first before resorting to type and gone squealing to the milk monitor, I could have explained to you that on a different thread (http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/256405-stenhousemuir-vs-queens-park-queens-park-vs-stenhousemuir/&page=3) the_bully_wee had written an excellent post explaining his views on social justice, and why he felt Clyde were correct to take the stance they have with Flynn, Love & Goodwillie. It was clearly written from the heart, and whilst I didn't agree with everything he said it would have been remiss of me not to give him a greenie for his honesty, which I duly did.
Therefore the question I posed him with the three examples was simply a follow on to that, to see where on his scale he would put someone who stole from his friends and colleagues, which I rank amongst the lowest of the low. "TBW" answered the question in a sensible manner and took no offence, so why did you? If you accept you acted in haste and on reflection now regret that you did, then no problem and we'll move on with no harm done. If not, then the old Stanley Matthews' story (or someone of his ilk) comes into play.
Sir Stanley was incensed by a refereeing decision that he strongly disagreed with, and decided to hold the referee to account. Challenging him he asked, "if I were to call you a blithering idiot, what would you do?" "If you were to say that to me Mr. Matthews then I would have no recourse other than to send you off." "Okay, suppose I just thought that you were a blithering idiot instead?" "Well Mr. Matthews, there would be nothing I could do about that." "Fine! In that case I think you're a blithering idiot!"
'Nuff said?
 

‘Nuff said?
Aye.
WTF are you on about?
You ramble on and on so much that people could use your posts to cure their insomnia.
Let me enlighten you re your jibes at Clyde as if we were rivals or something.
Queue Pee and their fans like you are of no interest to a club like ours.
If we need a rival it will be a club worthy of the name.
Not an insignificant minor piece of crap like your blood suckers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Clyde Man said:

Queue Pee and their fans like you are of no interest to a club like ours.

*checks team of thread starter*

*checks team of majority of posters in this thread*

Aye. Clearly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Clyde Man said:


‘Nuff said?
Aye.
WTF are you on about?
You ramble on and on so much that people could use your posts to cure their insomnia.
Let me enlighten you re your jibes at Clyde as if we were rivals or something.
Queue Pee and their fans like you are of no interest to a club like ours.
If we need a rival it will be a club worthy of the name.
Not an insignificant minor piece of crap like your blood suckers.

Thanks The Clyde Man. For someone who has no interest in QP you have a strange way of demonstrating it by posting on a thread where the heading clearly indicated the subject matter. But I can confirm that you have indeed been successful in enlightening me, as the nature of your most recent post explains quite a lot.

image.png.4e49dc50233d08b63592a9defe60589b.png

'Nuff said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Minertaur said:

If this thread is going to be the standard of this forum next season then I hope Cove hammer us this weekend.

In all honesty mate I suspect by the time we get to next April this thread will have become a highlight for you in comparison to the pish you're gonna find on the (at least) four match threads:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2018 at 10:53, The Spider said:

1. They move to Murrayfield and we're royally f**ked because of the Debenture debts (when we sold them to help raise extra funds for the development the SFA gave no indication they would be reviewing things at their halfway stage, and if there's no big games at Hampden then we are left liable to repay them, but if as originally anticipated another 20 year lease had been agreed then they would have run their course, which is why the SFA are now being "commercially opportunistic"/"blackmailing c**ts" depending on one's viewpoint).

However, and you raise a very good point there, if the land is council owned then I suspect that GDC would bend over backwards to help us with planning permission etc. ...

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.

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...