The Queen's Park 2018-19 Thread

[an86]

Will be listening very carefully to what comes out of next Wednesday’s meeting. In an ideal world, we’d remain as we are. However, we might need to be pragmatic about the future.

Nobody can take the history or heritage away from Queen’s Park, something that will always be unique. However, there’s undoubtedly a decision to be made. Is it so much of a sacred cow that people would rather play Lowland League football with amateur status, or would we rather go with a community club model and make a fist of remaining a league club?

I don’t share the optimism that we can remain amateur and hold off the incoming “big” non-league clubs. We may not even be able to do it if we do go semi-pro, such are the unknowns. None of us like what has happened, but difficult conversations are going to have to happen and not everyone is going to get what they want. 

Whatever the outcome of that particular debate, the support must be united for what is going to be difficult new territory in the coming years.

Edited September 13, 2018 by an86

[williebraveheart]

1 hour ago, ItsUnited said:

You are certainly no Dumbo and you make a valid point. However the football landscape in Scotland is changing dramatically and everybody knows that money talks. Queens are vulnerable as amateurs and could easily be swallowed up by the big Ayrshire, East region or West region clubs. Many are already firmly established with the potential to grow into bigger clubs than a fair share of SPL clubs. Queens have not had the need to be anything other than Amateurs in the past, time to look to the future. 

 

29 minutes ago, an86 said:

Will be listening very carefully to what comes out of next Wednesday’s meeting. In an ideal world, we’d remain as we are. However, we might need to be pragmatic about the future.

Nobody can take the history or heritage away from Queen’s Park, something that will always be unique. However, there’s undoubtedly a decision to be made. Is it so much of a sacred cow that people would rather play Lowland League football with amateur status, or would we rather go with a community club model and make a fist of remaining a league club?

I don’t share the optimism that we can remain amateur and hold off the incoming “big” non-league clubs. We may not even be able to do it if we do go semi-pro, such are the unknowns. None of us like what has happened, but difficult conversations are going to have to happen and not everyone is going to get what they want. 

Whatever the outcome of that particular debate, the support must be united for what is going to be difficult new territory in the coming years.

I get where you guys are coming from but I still don't get why turning professional could be a saviour. Where is the money coming from? We are currently run as efficiently as any part time pro team, better than some. I have no strong views either way but I would still be a Spiders supporter in the Scottish Amateur League if it came to the bit. They are my team come what may.

[big al]

you haven't been at the bottom since the introduction of the pyramid, so why the need to change things to avoid the bottom?

as it stands, the lowland league and highland league have made very little impact on the leagues. only edinburgh city have made it up, and they then struggled for a couple of seasons although they have started this season well enough so far. 

point is, league 2 is clearly a higher standard than the leagues below and QP are currently 1 of the better teams in it so why gamble and change when you are obviously capable of competing well in your current format?

[Bring Your Own Socks]

I'm with williebraveheart on this. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of the new new breed of ambitious LL/HL clubs will sustain their growth. EK and Cove are probably the best two examples of a sustained development but going from a park team to the upper minor leagues is still well short of taking a regular place in the big leagues.  A few years ago Brora were gallpoing away with the HL and still couldn't get past a really poor Montrose team. Since then, they've buckled as the thrill has waned. Spartans have been chapping at the door whenever an unearned vacancy came around and full credit for their comunity set-up, but still no-show for the main event. Edinburgh City are the shining stars but in truth you need at least 5-6 seasons to see if they can be established or not. Yes, some will improve but look how Montrose responded to their peek through the trapdoor. Scottish Cup coming up soon...we'll see then how far these Big wee clubs go.

Whatever we do it has to be measured. Don't panic!

[an86]

26 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

 

I get where you guys are coming from but I still don't get why turning professional could be a saviour. Where is the money coming from? We are currently run as efficiently as any part time pro team, better than some. I have no strong views either way but I would still be a Spiders supporter in the Scottish Amateur League if it came to the bit. They are my team come what may.

Absolutely. That wasn’t what I was getting at. My point was more of a preference of where we’d want to be as a club. If we ended up South of Scotland or Lowland League, I don’t think many would walk away. We’re hardly in glory hunting territory as it is!

I think top junior level is better than Lowland. That’s just an opinion, which I’m sure some might disagree with. The bottom end is going to get stronger and we’re going to have to prepare for that, whether it’s amateur or semi-pro. 

My opinions on this aren’t yet well informed ones and I won’t claim otherwise. What the club says next Wednesday will give us the opportunity to digest and ponder the best way forward.

Edited September 13, 2018 by an86

[stewmar]

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/queen-s-park-set-for-meeting-with-even-amateur-status-on-the-line-1-4799675

[The man with no name]

31 minutes ago, stewmar said:

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/queen-s-park-set-for-meeting-with-even-amateur-status-on-the-line-1-4799675

Another scaremongering story that is complete bollocks! There is 1 quote from the President and it never mentions anything other than he will talk to the members first! How the journalist gets our Amateur status is on the line and it is going to be a stormy meeting from that is beyond me.   

[williebraveheart]

13 hours ago, an86 said:

Absolutely. That wasn’t what I was getting at. My point was more of a preference of where we’d want to be as a club. If we ended up South of Scotland or Lowland League, I don’t think many would walk away. We’re hardly in glory hunting territory as it is!

I think top junior level is better than Lowland. That’s just an opinion, which I’m sure some might disagree with. The bottom end is going to get stronger and we’re going to have to prepare for that, whether it’s amateur or semi-pro. 

My opinions on this aren’t yet well informed ones and I won’t claim otherwise. What the club says next Wednesday will give us the opportunity to digest and ponder the best way forward.

I am as uninformed as you and agree that we should have a clearer picture after Wednesday. Fingers crossed.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, stewmar said:

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/queen-s-park-set-for-meeting-with-even-amateur-status-on-the-line-1-4799675

Thanks stewmar. I'm suring you were just sharing with good intent. The only thing stormy at these meetings is the bowel movements from the predominant age group. The pictures about five years old, at least, so safe to say the Scotsman doesn't quite have their finger on the pulse. Makes the Daily Record look good tbh.

[QPFCsince1867]

Yes I thought that picture was deliberate. A nice shot of our new building and £5million in the bank wouldn’t have fitted the journslist’s angle. Pathetic.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, The man with no name said:

How the journalist gets our Amateur status is on the line....... is beyond me.   

Agreed. I mean it's not as if they go trawling P&B just looking for stories is it. Oh.

[DutchBorderer]

What's the correct way of referring to QP's stripes; inch stripes or one inch stripes?

[Bring Your Own Socks]

14 minutes ago, DutchBorderer said:

What's the correct way of referring to QP's stripes; inch stripes or one inch stripes?

Hoops.

[NathanQP]

Hoops.

One inch hoops*

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 minute ago, NathanQP said:

 

One inch hoops*

 

Indeed. I though I'd get the "hoops" established first. I had a concern the Dutchman would be leading it toward 25.4mm.

[The Spider]

40 minutes ago, DutchBorderer said:

What's the correct way of referring to QP's stripes; inch stripes or one inch stripes?

We all used to refer to them as "hoops" but as was pointed out on this site a few months ago technically when when we first wore them they were referred to as "horizontal stripes" so either description is correct, but we remain "The Glorious Hoops"!

[jagfox]

Roughly how much of the SFA payments went to Queens Park? Will there be a funding hole when the current arrangement ends in 2020?

[The Spider]

Other than (ill?) informed journalism, so far we only have hints and inferences from the current and past President to rely on, but IF there is to be a proposal that discussions are to take place with a view to members being asked to vote on the matter further down the line, then purely from an emotional stance I would be firmly against any change to our lingering (loanees and re-instated pros whether by necessity or otherwise have stretched it as far as it will go!) amateur status.

However, the head will need to rule the heart, but even from that viewpoint I'm struggling to see the benefit. The inference in that if the business model is to change then it will be entirely for financial reasons. I'm no accountant, but I have a basic grasp of the concepts so what would change?

Income - the majority of our revenue stream (once Hampden is removed from the picture) would basically be no different from most other clubs.......gate receipts, "prize" money from league and cup endeavours, and income from commercial endeavours. None of that to my basic understanding would change, so the only difference would be any transfer fees we might receive. Would that potentially be significantly more than UEFA development income we already get, and remember that unless we have players on contracts longer than 1 year, they'll simply go for nought anyway.

Expenditure - the only significant things that will change here are how much more the wage-bill increases compared to what we currently pay by way of travel expenses, and any transfer fees we will incur to get targetted players that would improve the squad......or goal-scorers as they are otherwise known! Another factor that would need to be taken into account is that we would also need to contribute to any loanee's wages, and we will need to spend more on Lesser's upkeep in future too.

So unless I've missed something here, without increasing our regular income stream we would likely be incurring appreciable extra costs all on the gamble that we would make a large enough profit on the buying and selling game? If that's the extent of it, I'll need some convincing that it's worth throwing away our heritage for.

Ludere Causa Ludendi - remember that would need to go too!

[Spidersmad]

One inch horizontal stripes, you riff raff. Honestly, I go abroad for a short holiday and come back to find the apocalypse.  So on Tuesday I found out that we beat TNS (yay!), we're out of Hampden and consigned to Lesser Hampden (mixed feelings), and that Gus may well be going (definite boo!). There's even talk of us giving up our gentlemanly status and letting (shudder) paid professionals wear the one inch horizontal stripes, although presumably with their jerseys tucked inside their knickerbockers.

So many questions, especially regarding  Lesser Hampden. My preference  has always been a move back over the hill to Cathkin or Second Hampden as the site has much more scope for development into a reasonably compact stadium. At Lesser the J.B. McAlpine pavilion blocks sightlines down what would presumably be the "main stand" side of a new stadium. The opposite side of the ground backs onto the lane behind the West stand of Hampden, so there isn't much room to build a stand there. Would Queen's own Lesser outright? We should not be beholden to  the SFA in any way, shape or form. We need a clean break. The ground was refurbished with Commonwealth Games money and that seems to have come with a commitment to community use. Presumably that would have to be looked at again. Understandably not much coming out of the club just now, but hopefully we'll be better informed after Wednesday.

Oh aye, and if Gus goes, should we approach Billy Stark?

 

 

[williebraveheart]

13 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Other than (ill?) informed journalism, so far we only have hints and inferences from the current and past President to rely on, but IF there is to be a proposal that discussions are to take place with a view to members being asked to vote on the matter further down the line, then purely from an emotional stance I would be firmly against any change to our lingering (loanees and re-instated pros whether by necessity or otherwise have stretched it as far as it will go!) amateur status.

However, the head will need to rule the heart, but even from that viewpoint I'm struggling to see the benefit. The inference in that if the business model is to change then it will be entirely for financial reasons. I'm no accountant, but I have a basic grasp of the concepts so what would change?

Income - the majority of our revenue stream (once Hampden is removed from the picture) would basically be no different from most other clubs.......gate receipts, "prize" money from league and cup endeavours, and income from commercial endeavours. None of that to my basic understanding would change, so the only difference would be any transfer fees we might receive. Would that potentially be significantly more than UEFA development income we already get, and remember that unless we have players on contracts longer than 1 year, they'll simply go for nought anyway.

Expenditure - the only significant things that will change here are how much more the wage-bill increases compared to what we currently pay by way of travel expenses, and any transfer fees we will incur to get targetted players that would improve the squad......or goal-scorers as they are otherwise known! Another factor that would need to be taken into account is that we would also need to contribute to any loanee's wages, and we will need to spend more on Lesser's upkeep in future too.

So unless I've missed something here, without increasing our regular income stream we would likely be incurring appreciable extra costs all on the gamble that we would make a large enough profit on the buying and selling game? If that's the extent of it, I'll need some convincing that it's worth throwing away our heritage for.

Ludere Causa Ludendi - remember that would need to go too!

My thoughts exactly. Given that there has been no rush to explain the benefits and costings I must assume that there are no benefits and increased costs on top of what will be a reduced revenue stream.