The Queen's Park 2018-19 Thread

[The Spider]

2 hours ago, jinky said:

must be short of RBs

That's a fair assumption Jinky, but I thought that Dom McLaren had been signed for that position. Maybe he's away on holiday as he wasn't on the bench, so hopefully Gav was just filling in as you suggested as I think he'd be a first choice for midfield alongside McKernon as at 26 they've got a lot more experience than all the 21 and 22 year-olds we've signed.

Edited July 18, 2018 by The Spider

[jinky]

Forgot about Dom McLaren...is he not a CB? Or am I mistaken...

[The Spider]

Jinky, you're right that he is a natural centre-half, but he has a stature similar to Paul Gallagher who converted very successfully to a right back for us, and as we have a surfeit of central defenders at the moment I wondered whether Gus would consider going back to having three central defenders at the back, where you may recall Bryan Wharton filled the right sided role.

I agree with you though that we don't appear to have a natural over-lapping wing back type of defender in the squad, unless James Grant (whom I know very little about) fits that description?

[Hampden Diehard]

Forgot about Dom McLaren...is he not a CB? Or am I mistaken...

I think he might be a right back.

[cmontheloknow]

13 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

On 18/07/2018 at 21:57, jinky said:

Forgot about Dom McLaren...is he not a CB? Or am I mistaken...

I think he might be a right back.

He's 6-04. Can any manager in Scotland get past playing a big guy in goals, at the back or up top??

Edited July 20, 2018 by cmontheloknow

[The Spider]

I'm not sure how much credence to give this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5972753/SFA-deadline-Queens-Park-hand-Hampden-Park-keys.html, but if true then it suggests there was a committee meeting last night to either agree to sign over Hampden to the SFA by Monday, or call their bluff and tell them to sod off to Murrayfield if they won't allow us to continue to use the stadium for our games.

Shades of Brexit here, but where do things currently stand on this..........................do the committee have full autonomy to make whatever decision they feel is best for the club, or do they have to come back to the membership first and allow them a vote on whatever the final "take it or leave it" deal is?

[Chester Desmond]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

I'm not sure how much credence to give this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5972753/SFA-deadline-Queens-Park-hand-Hampden-Park-keys.html, but if true then it suggests there was a committee meeting last night to either agree to sign over Hampden to the SFA by Monday, or call their bluff and tell them to sod off to Murrayfield if they won't allow us to continue to use the stadium for our games.

Shades of Brexit here, but where do things currently stand on this..........................do the committee have full autonomy to make whatever decision they feel is best for the club, or do they have to come back to the membership first and allow them a vote on whatever the final "take it or leave it" deal is?

From my (entirely fallible) memory of chats about this earlier in the year, I think the committee have autonomy having been elected by members to take decisions.  So no second referendum.  In fact, not even a first.

 

I'll not read the article as its the Daily Mail, but hopefully the club will provide an update on this subject soon.

[JT1867]

9 minutes ago, Chester Desmond said:

From my (entirely fallible) memory of chats about this earlier in the year, I think the committee have autonomy having been elected by members to take decisions.  So no second referendum.  In fact, not even a first.

 

I'll not read the article as its the Daily Mail, but hopefully the club will provide an update on this subject soon.

At the AGM in May the immediate past President was very dismissive of the idea of putting any deal to a vote of the full membership.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, Chester Desmond said:

From my (entirely fallible) memory of chats about this earlier in the year, I think the committee have autonomy having been elected by members to take decisions.

 

1 hour ago, JT1867 said:

At the AGM in May the immediate past President was very dismissive of the idea of putting any deal to a vote of the full membership.

Cheers for that gents..........happy to let them get on with it, was just unsure of the protocols.............but hopefully they'll keep the membership informed rather than us having to read about it in the gutter press or elsewhere on P&B first.

[BB_Bino]

I really don’t know how I feel about that story with regards to Hampden. The frustrated socialist in me think, “tell them to get to Falkirk, it’s another example of the big guy crushing the wee guy and stealing what doesn’t belong to them” but then the football side of me questions why it hasn’t happened before now with Queen’s Park not playing at Lesser Hampden.

 

I don’t know the in’s and outs of it all, so I’m not sure what my own opinion on the subject really is, I don’t see the problem with QP playing there, it’s not like they are destroying the turf or anything like that, but why have the club never looked at the long term to move to the more suitable surroundings of Lesser?

 

Edit to add: The answer may be in this article, i don’t know, but I refuse to click on a Daily Mail link to find out.

[The Spider]

22 minutes ago, BB_Bino said:

why have the club never looked at the long term to move to the more suitable surroundings of Lesser?.

How do you know they haven't "looked at it" in the past BB Bino, as your question is a bit presumptious on that front? In all seriousness though, whether they have or haven't, the short answer is that our ability to fund our youth set-up , ladies team, large community programme etc. is all funded by the Hampden rental income. Without that we could cut our cloth and become (forgive me) another Stirling Albion for example, but if forced to do so then I think we would lose a large part of our identity.

You're actually better placed to answer this than QP fans, but isn't there a little piece of mystique and a tiny whiff of nostalgia in the air when you play "the old QP", or did that belong to previous generations who watched your games at Annfield? Whatever your response, I think it's fair to say that a good sized chunk of our heritage is about to be swallowed up by the modern Corporate world, seemingly with not a lot to show for it.

[an86]

Nothing seems to have greatly changed other than the fact we now have a solid timescale for our shafting. Take a deal that blackmails the football club and doesn’t give us any guarantees in the long term, or do we call their bluff and throw the immediate future of the club into question if they aren’t bluffing?

f**k the SFA, incidentally.

Edited July 20, 2018 by an86

[haufdaft]

Nothing seems to have greatly changed other than the fact we now have a solid timescale for our shafting. Take a deal that blackmails the football club and doesn’t give us any guarantees in the long term, or do we call their bluff and throw the immediate future of the club into question if they aren’t bluffing?
f**k the SFA, incidentally.

Is it really blackmail when a Scottish League Two club with an average attendance of around 500 expects the Scottish football authorities to subsidise Queens Park playing in a 50,000 all seater stadium?

Perhaps it's just a case of reality starting to bite.

Lesser Hampden is a much better fit for a club your size.

Scottish football does not owe Queens Park a thing.

[an86]

19 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

Is it really blackmail when a Scottish League Two club with an average attendance of around 500 expects the Scottish football authorities to subsidise Queens Park playing in a 50,000 all seater stadium?

Perhaps it's just a case of reality starting to bite.

Lesser Hampden is a much better fit for a club your size.

Scottish football does not owe Queens Park a thing.

Is it blackmail when the national association offers substantially under market value, knowing that the future of the club is at stake? Yes, it is.

Does Scottish football owe any club anything? No. Is it right and proper that Queen’s Park, or indeed any other organisation, is given a fair deal for a valuable asset? Yes, it is.

Now, f**k off.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by an86

[haufdaft]

Is it blackmail when the national association offers substantially under market value, knowing that the future of the club is at stake? Yes, it is. Does Scottish football owe any club anything? No. Is it right and proper that Queen’s Park, or indeed any other organisation, is given a fair deal for a valuable asset? Yes, it is.

Now, f**k off.

 

 

 

The market value is the price that potential buyers are willing to pay. 

 

 

If the SFA are offering substantially under the market value then accept the other bids closer to your "market value".

 

I wonder what you would do when buying a house. Would you bid more than you need to if you know the seller is desperate for a deal?

 

Why should the SFA offer more than they need to?

 

 

 

 

 

[an86]

Just now, haufdaft said:

The market value is the price that potential buyers are willing to pay.

 

If the SFA are offering substantially under the market value then accept the other bids closer to your "market value".

 

I wonder what you would do when buying a house. Would you bid more than you need to of you know the seller is desperate for a deal?

 

Why should the SFA offer more than they need to?

 

 

 

Housing developers would pay more. Substantially more, actually. For example, St Mirren Park, on a much smaller footprint, was sold for £15million. Nobody realistic would ask for anything approaching market value, but would expect a fair deal.

A deal which involves the SFA taking over Hampden and Queen’s Park playing at Lesser Hampden with some financial security should be eminently achievable and reasonable.

A national association is in the process of potentially bullying and blackmailing a member club out of existence for its own financial gain. Folk can paint it any way they want, but that’s what’s happening here.

[the_bully_wee]

7 minutes ago, an86 said:

Housing developers would pay more. Substantially more, actually. For example, St Mirren Park, on a much smaller footprint, was sold for £15million. Nobody realistic would ask for anything approaching market value, but would expect a fair deal.

A deal which involves the SFA taking over Hampden and Queen’s Park playing at Lesser Hampden with some financial security should be eminently achievable and reasonable.

A national association is in the process of potentially bullying and blackmailing a member club out of existence for its own financial gain. Folk can paint it any way they want, but that’s what’s happening here.

And why aren't QP, as bastions of the greater footballing good, willing to sacrifice themselves in order to improve the health of the Scottish game? Seems a bit strange, to me.

[craigkillie]

Housing developers would pay more. Substantially more, actually. For example, St Mirren Park, on a much smaller footprint, was sold for £15million. Nobody realistic would ask for anything approaching market value, but would expect a fair deal.
A deal which involves the SFA taking over Hampden and Queen’s Park playing at Lesser Hampden with some financial security should be eminently achievable and reasonable.
A national association is in the process of potentially bullying and blackmailing a member club out of existence for its own financial gain. Folk can paint it any way they want, but that’s what’s happening here.

If housing developers would pay loads more then why aren't Queen's Park selling it to them?

I'm struggling to see where the "blackmail" is here. The contract for Hampden is nearly up and the SFA are looking at their alternatives. Hampden (as much as I like it) is an unpopular venue, and a viable alternative has been offered by Murrayfield.

They'll know what the figures are for Murrayfield, and that will be influencing their offer here. They're hardly going to batter in and offer £10m if the numbers don't add up compared to Murrayfield. I would hate going to Murrayfield for internationals and pumping money into rugby, but unfortunately I think I'm in a minority, and I think staying at Hampden would actually be a much more politically challenging decision for them in terms of appeasing the fans.

It seems to me that the bigger issue is that Queen's Park are not currently sustainable on their own and rely on the income from Hampden. It would be absolutely horrible if Queen's Park went out of business, but I don't think it is necessarily the SFA's job to prop them up if they genuinely can't afford to go on otherwise.

[an86]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

If housing developers would pay loads more then why aren't Queen's Park selling it to them?

I'm struggling to see where the "blackmail" is here. The contract for Hampden is nearly up and the SFA are looking at their alternatives. Hampden (as much as I like it) is an unpopular venue, and a viable alternative has been offered by Murrayfield.

They'll know what the figures are for Murrayfield, and that will be influencing their offer here. They're hardly going to batter in and offer £10m if the numbers don't add up compared to Murrayfield. I would hate going to Murrayfield for internationals and pumping money into rugby, but unfortunately I think I'm in a minority, and I think staying at Hampden would actually be a much more politically challenging decision for them in terms of appeasing the fans.

It seems to me that the bigger issue is that Queen's Park are not currently sustainable on their own and rely on the income from Hampden. It would be absolutely horrible if Queen's Park went out of business, but I don't think it is necessarily the SFA's job to prop them up if they genuinely can't afford to go on otherwise.

 

You’ve just pulled the 10million out of your arse for some unknown reason.  Nobody at the club wants millions upon millions. A decent deal for Queen’s Park is a reasonable amount to keep afloat over a transition period and somewhere to play. £2million for a piece of land worth significantly more, and Queen’s Park having nowhere to play does not offer that. 

Would anyone in Scottish football see Queen’s Park selling Hampden on the cheap and having some money to tide over, being allowed to play at Lesser Hampden, and keeping a social club on site, as a bad deal? It’s not even necessarily the absolute Tam from Still Game offer that actually bothers me most, it’s the apparent reluctance to move on Lesser Hampden. If the club is forced to move outside of the Southside of Glasgow, it’s a slow death. If it’s saddled with the debt, it’s a significantly quicker one.

The deal done on Hampden was totally short sighted and we dug a hole for ourselves, everyone knows and accepts this. I think every realistic fan probably realises that the way the club is run will have to change, regardless of what happens. We cannot be an anomaly forever.

However, as much as you do disagree, the offers, deadline threats and general attitude of the SFA have amounted to little less than blackmail of a member club. Take the peanuts, somehow find yourselves a home with those peanuts, or die. 

[cmontheloknow]

I've not followed this story too closely, so can someone outline what the exact differences between the two parties are?

SFA currently pay £800,000 a year for Hampden. Murrayfield available for less, yes?

SFA wish to buy Hampden from Queen's Park or move to Murrayfield, yes?

In March, QP agreed in principle to sell as they cannot afford to go on without Scotland playing at Hampden because, should they go...

"...the club's subsidiary, The National Stadium Company face a £4.5m bill for the repayment of debenture seats sold in 1999.

They would also be required to return half of a £24m Millennium Commission grant handed over as part of a £60m upgrade 18 years ago if Hampden's status as 'The National Stadium' ends before 2040."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5563873/Queens-Park-attempt-sell-Hampden-Scottish-FA-i.html

It is suggested within the article below...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-plan-buy-hampden-deal-12067172

that Hampden has little worth beyond football because of the costs of clearing the site.

The same article deal could be worth something "significantly less" than £5 million to QP.

QP want Lesser upgraded as part of any deal but there's no public cash to do further Hampden redevelopments with. Is this the sticking point?

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by cmontheloknow