The Queen's Park 2018-19 Thread

[haufdaft]

I wasn't seeking to win any battle. You are correct though, it's not worth the hassle.

If you do want questions to ask, I'd suggest asking your former club representatives why they negotiated a deal with the SFA that could leave your club homeless.

Also ask your fellow QP fans why they blame the SFA for not their former committee.

Now that is something worth talking about on the QP thread.

[The Spider]

18 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

I wasn't seeking to win any battle. You are correct though, it's not worth the hassle.

If you do want questions to ask, I'd suggest asking your former club representatives why they negotiated a deal with the SFA that could leave your club homeless.

Also ask your fellow QP fans why they blame the SFA for not their former committee.

Now that is something worth talking about on the QP thread.

Good man, and happy to answer those questions.

It was 20 years ago, so what do you think might be achieved by asking questions of those no longer on committee (or deceased!) why they made the decisions they made then when it ain't gonna change anything? Were they naive or just plain stupid in thinking that the SFA would honour a gentleman's agreement to remain at Hampden throughout the Debenturte period ? Absolutely, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing as you yourself have just learned.

So of course we blame the former Committee, but if you were in our shoes would you spend time raking over the coals or concentrate on the fight at hand? You're intelligent enough not to have to state the bleeding obvious, so you should also be clever enough to understand that the SFA have a right way to do this and a wrong way. Were it Clyde or any other league club in this situation I would be very disappointed were the SFA to take an unnecessarily hard line. Fair enough to get the best possible deal they can and obtain an asset for considerably lower than its market value, but to threaten that club's very existence when it would cost them nothing to allow that club to continue to use a small part of a 33 acre site to preserve their identity is a step too far.

If the shoe was on the other foot Haufdaft and it was Clyde in this situation, how would you be answering your own questions?

[bobthespider]

Thought we were really good today passed the ball well and did not lump it up the park . Found it funny that some fans one in particular hated the fact we kept possession well . Looks a far better team than last year already hope Gus keeps to playing 2 up front and allowing good footballers to play . Already seen a contender for goal of the season and whoever played number 8 for Queens was man of the match by a country mile .
Spartans came and played for a draw good luck to them in lowland league but think they might struggle.
Looking forward to the next two games but the important stuff starts against Peterhead in the league.

[haufdaft]

A few points and a question.

1. To agree a multimillion pound deal on a gentleman's handshake is outrageous. Especially when much of the monies belonged to the public. Perhaps your lawyers at the time should get their baws kicked if they didn't warn your committee. Even myself, just from watching Judge Judy, know that all agreed matters should be contained in writing between the four corners of the contract.

2.The market value is the price that someone will pay. If you get a better offer accept it.

3. The rest of Scottish football should not enhance a deal for one of their member clubs just because of that club's history.

In saying that, in all seriousness, I do not want Queens Park to disappear. So with that in mind, why do the SFA want to get you out of lesser Hampden? Had there been a reason given for this unreasonable position.
Would leasing it not an option to you if they insist on SFA ownership of lesser Hampden? Many teams do not own their stadia these days.

[The Spider]

No 8 was Calvin McGrory, and he did indeed have a fine game Bob with an eye for the subtle threaded pass, but to say he was " man of the match by a country mile" is surely being disrespectful to Scott Gibson who, his 2nd ever goal for the club apart, was also a worthy contender in my view. What was it about Gibson's performance that you didn't rate Bob, or on reflection do you concede the "country mile" bit?

[an86]

Gibby was good, but thought McGrory was excellent as well and would have been my MOTM. Osadolor looks like he could cause problems with his pace and could be a really useful out ball, Roberts looks like he can produce, and Hart looks solid. I expect a huge onus on keeping shape on Tuesday night.

[qpfc]

Mcgrory was excellent and was definitely my man of the match. Will be interesting to see how he'll deal with smaller pitches, under more pressure because there's no doubt he's got the technical ability. Roberts has been impressive throughout pre season and the first 2 games and scored a belter of a goal. Hopefully that's not the last. Osadolor, Gibson and Mckernon all put in great shifts aswell. Looking forward to see how we cope with the spl teams.

 

[bobthespider]

No 8 was Calvin McGrory, and he did indeed have a fine game Bob with an eye for the subtle threaded pass, but to say he was " man of the match by a country mile" is surely being disrespectful to Scott Gibson who, his 2nd ever goal for the club apart, was also a worthy contender in my view. What was it about Gibson's performance that you didn't rate Bob, or on reflection do you concede the "country mile" bit?

Thought Gibson was good also but as a footballer who looked comfortable on the ball always found space and could pass a ball number 8 was motm . Thought number 7 ran him close also

[The Spider]

Just now, haufdaft said:

A few points and a question.

1. To agree a multimillion pound deal on a gentleman's handshake is outrageous. Especially when much of the monies belonged to the public. Perhaps your lawyers at the time should get their baws kicked if they didn't warn your committee. Even myself, just from watching Judge Judy, know that all agreed matters should be contained in writing between the four corners of the contract.

2.The market value is the price that someone will pay. If you get a better offer accept it.

3. The rest of Scottish football should not enhance a deal for one of their member clubs just because of that club's history.

In saying that, in all seriousness, I do not want Queens Park to disappear. So with that in mind, why do the SFA want to get you out of lesser Hampden? Had there been a reason given for this unreasonable position.
Would leasing it not an option to you if they insist on SFA ownership of lesser Hampden? Many teams do not own their stadia these days.

Ok,

1. Of course they got legal advice, and your point is valid, but 20 years ago it was a very different world and I genuinely don't think that anyone had the foresight to believe that Hampden wouldn't continue to be The National Stadium throughout the debenture period, particularly given the amount of money that was invested in it. The reason for the 20 year period was so that the terms of the rental could be reviewed and given the cosy trusting relationship (for which we can be rightly criticised) at the time it would have been completely unthinkable that we would find ourselves in the position that we do now.

2. Indeed it is, but you are being idealistic. Supposing Barratt waltz in tomorrow and offer us £30m for the site, do you think for one minute that the SFA would offer us a penny more? The only reason they are offering us way below "market price" is because they know that if we well it to anyone else then we will be in a net worse position because of the debenture and lottery repayment clauses. That's why the SFA will not under any circumstances now agree to extend the lease for the next 20 years. Good business acumen you might think if they were screwing an unrelated Third Party. Morally indefensible I'd suggest when you are doing it to someone you've relied on so heavily in the past.

3. Depends what you mean by "enhance". I agree that they shouldn't pay us a single penny more than they would have done were Hampden owned by Clyde, East Stirling or Spartans for that matter, but how does allowing Queen's Park to retain ownership of Lesser Hampden (with full and free access to the SFA on big match days) or taking ownership and granting a peppercorn rent in any way reduce the value of the deal to Scottish football as a whole. Were QP professional then you would have a point as that benefit would leave more money to be spent on signing players, but we're not, so how do Clyde or any other team lose out of the deal if QP are allowed to remain at Lesser Hampden as a negotiated part of the entire package.

I have absolutely no idea why they want us out (and I have to again stress I'm not party to the negotiations so only have hearsay and press specualtion to lead me to that belief and I'd love to be wrong on that one!) as it makes no sense whatsoever. Lesser Hampden's only value to the SFA is as a training ground for opposition teams whilst Scotland are at Largs, and they get all the use they need of it as part of the big match deal anyway. There is a very simple solution that would suit all parties here........

• the SFA give us full use of LH throughout the year for a nominal affordable rent to compensate us for their below market purchase price, and they retain full use of it's facilities for big match games, and thewy include a clause making us fully responsible for it's maintenance and upkeep which is in turn a reduced expense for them
• Glasgow City Council provide resource and funding to upgrade the LH to the point where it meets (just) the criteria for it to become a registered ground. Why? Because if the SFA move to Murrayfield then the local Glasgow economy will lose 10s of millions over a 20 year period (and beyond), so they are as desparate as us for that not to happen and what they would need to bring LH up to scratch would only be a fraction of the revenue that would otherwise be lost to pubs, hotels and shops, not to mention the jobs that would go with it.

That would leave QP in a fair position where they could then create a new business model which would allow them to remain amateur and live within their means going forward, with the sale money going towards Lesser Hampden's long-term upkeep. Any other option will see youth football slashed, community initiatives ceased, the country's Football Museum put at risk and worst of all the complete loss of our heritage which, whilst that might please the usual suspects, would make Scottish football all the poorer for that.

[The Spider]

23 minutes ago, bobthespider said:

Thought Gibson was good also but as a footballer who looked comfortable on the ball always found space and could pass a ball number 8 was motm . Thought number 7 ran him close also

Good shout Bob, but is that not always the way that it's the players who are most pleasing on the eye who get the lion's share of the credit? I try to appreciate defence as a skill too (anticipation, closing of space, bravery and firmness in the tackle etc.), and personally I thought that Gibson's reading of situations today was superb, which means he didn't have to make as many last ditched saving challenges to compensate for preventing those situations from happening in the first place. My only criticism of Kurtis Roberts (no. 7) today was his two backpasses to his goalkeeper from the opposition half late in the game today as that simply encourages the opposition to press in greater numbers, but also runs the risk of a more experience centre forward gambling on him doing that and making the interception.

[haufdaft]

Regardless of my dislike for your team, I genuinely hope any deal allows the survival of QP as a club with you standing on your own two feet.

 

 

[bobthespider]

Thought the back pass to the goal keeper no 7 was different and was a breath of fresh air that we have a player who does what he likes and in my opinion did exactly the right thing .long may it continue

[NathanQP]

Bit of rustiness on show today but that was expected, roberts looks like a player at this level and looks good on first looks. Osadolor looks like he could be a very frustrating player. Enjoyed the game more than any game last year

[Hampden Diehard]

I haven't read all the contributions here, but I'll weigh in with my own.

The SFA have no intention of moving away from Hampden,  Despite being run by halfwits, even they realise that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by pulling out.   They earn £1 million for the naming rights of the stadium; they receive the same from Sodexho for what are termed the "pouring rights" (that's selling pies and all the hospitality stuff); they made 500k from each night of the Ed Sheeran concerts; Hampden is the only stadium in Scotland that can host a European club final;  they have a museum, a sports injury clinic and the offices of all the relevant football associations that Scotland deems necessary to have, plus the offices of the SPFL.  For the rent that they pay, this would seem to be a good deal.  They would lose all of this if they moved and would get nothing back as all the income other than gate receipts would go to the SRU.

Murrayfield - despite the Tartan Army tossers who whine about Hampden constantly, let's see how they like the view from the back of the stands at the rugby stadium, just as far back as at Hampden.  And let's see how they get on when trying to get back to anywhere in Scotland after a midweek match at Murrayfield.  Two hours to queue for a train after the last Scotland v England rugby international - the last train will have long gone in midweek.  The road links....one road in and one road out...pandemonium.  The rugby punters have all their matches in the afternoon; the Scotland internationals are almost never held in the afternoon now.  Despite the buses that come from a' the airts to support Scotland at Hampden, it's local types who make up the vast bulk of the crowd.  Will they all travel to Edinburgh?

Murrayfield operates via licences granted by the local council; currently they have eight.  That generally covers the rugby and a couple of entertainment events.  With two semi finals and a final in each cup and Scotland matches, that's easily the same number again from football.  You can imagine the stooshie that the douce local residents will make after just one Old Firm match, guys fighting and pishing on the rose bushes, where everyone will be coming from, and leaving from, the same direction.  The politicians will be under huge pressure to sort it out.  How long would the politicians hold out until they reduced the number of licences down again.

The SFA are doing this because they smell blood and because they can.   They know that QP are in a very weak bargaining position. 

They are presiding over a game in Scotland that sees the national side being banjoed by countries who have come from nowhere to be no more than adequate, but much better than us.  Our club sides are a laughing stock, even in Scotland.  And they organised a car crash of a process to appoint a new national team manager.  Was the embarrassment of the procedure worth the end result?  How many of you think they got that one right?

The SFA is run by wankers who cannot steer a way out of the dark despondency that Scottish international and club football is in but unfortunately the wankers are going to win this one.  Anyone having a laugh at our situation is allying themselves with these muppets and is not worth bothering about..

For QP, this is all about damage limitation.  Me?  If I could influence it, I'd tell the SFA to pack their bags and f**k off.  Sadly, that luxury is not available to Queen's Park.

Personally, I've almost had enough of Hampden.  Its glory days are over and the SFA or property developers are welcome to it.  I'd happily walk out tomorrow on our own terms, rather than be pushed out by these wallopers.  Hampden has given Scottish football, and the SFA, a higher profile than any comparable country.  No one owes Queen's Park anything; the galling thing is the way this is being done and letting people who could not run a menage, as my mother would say, winning, and winning handsomely.. 

The continued existence and prosperity of Queen's Park Football Club is the most important thing for QP fans.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Hampden Diehard

[Hampden Diehard]

And....much of the stuff you read in the press is inaccurate.  Don't base your opinion on unnamed spokespeople.  Unnamed "sources" are generally a pal of a journalist who heard something from someone in a pub.

[Velvet Donkey]

22 hours ago, NathanQP said:

Enjoyed the game more than any game last year

Yes I've enjoyed watching the two games this year more than any last year (well maybe Alloa). The team, and the way they're setting up, is encouraging so far, and with options for positions. Kurtis Roberts looks like a great find and I'd like to see him keep his position in the middle.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Velvet Donkey

[spider1867]

We'll could not make game yesterday. But by all accounts we improved from the Dumbarton game which I thought was  a very good performance. Roberts and McGrory getting a lot of praise on here. Do we think they are good enough to keep in our team. Seeing Gus praise them in his after match interview. I love seeing players from our own youth system coming in and doing well. Long may it continue. Young boy Grant is a good player also loves a tackle. Was Ali Miller injured or did Gus just hook him? Optimistic for the season ahead we may see some possession based football. Do we think Gus will go with more experience against St Mirren and Killie or give these young guys a chance. 

[The Clyde Man]

we are clyde super clyde none likes us we dont care lol hate qpee till i die 

Stay on here where you belong you demented bambot.
Your pretence at being a Clyde supporter fools nobody.

[Hampden Diehard]

Aye, an encouraging start. Perhaps a pity that the next 3 games are so challenging, but them's the breaks. It's actually not the worst thing that the defence will be stretched so much. We need to get back to the situation of two years ago when we were rock solid back there.

[an86]

Another thing I noticed on Saturday, McKernon had a right go at McLauchlan in the first half, which I see as a positive. Someone stepping up and demanding more on the field. We saw little of that last season.