Jump to content

Queen's Park 2019/20


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

Instant? The club have known about this for over a year probably a lot longer.

Quite correct Willie. Back when Ross Caven was President he conducted a similar exercise, but covertly to try and avoid drawing too much attention to it. The canvassing of opinion at that time didn't produce the results they were hoping for so it went onto the back-burner and here we are again. TMWNN is quite right that it's inevitable, as if it gets blocked this time then they'll have another go in a couple of years time so this will happen at some point. All I ask is that they have the decency to do it the proper way. If TMWNN gets his way we'll be professional with a constitution that continues to preach the ethos of amateurism and a motto on the team's jerseys that does likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JT1867 said:

I suspect that if they did that then they would be accused of railroading the change through.

Regret I disgree JT. They would be more likely to be accused of railroading the change through if they don't ask for a member's vote. If it's what the membership want it will happen. If it's not then it shouldn't. Simple as that really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

Instant? The club have known about this for over a year probably a lot longer. Why consult the fans? Have we no leadership at the helm? Decisions could be made at committee meetings and a proposal put to the members along with some figures to back it up and sell it. Surely that is what members expect when they vote for these guys for committee. They are there to run the club. If not, what is the point in having them? 

Initially, the club didn't know where we stood with Hampden ownership before an agreement was reached. The finer details of the agreement then took an age to iron out. We couldn't move before that happened. 

We've now moved to consulting the support. I don't know how anyone can reasonably expect flick of a switch stuff here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, an86 said:

Initially, the club didn't know where we stood with Hampden ownership before an agreement was reached. The finer details of the agreement then took an age to iron out. We couldn't move before that happened. 

We've now moved to consulting the support. I don't know how anyone can reasonably expect flick of a switch stuff here. 

Are you suggesting this initiative wouldn't be taking place if the SFA had signed up for another 20 years? The committee began canvassing opinion years ago, and whilst I completely agree that the Hampden situation has hastened things, I believe it's been inevitable ever since we began playing loanees. Re-instating Ross McFarlane's amateur status for a couple of games was one thing (we'd done the same with R S McColl and others 100 years earlier), but that was something completely different.

I'm happy for the club to take this at their own pace to reach the right answer for what's best of the club, so long as they declare now who will be asked to make the final decision however far down the line that may be. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Regret I disgree JT. They would be more likely to be accused of railroading the change through if they don't ask for a member's vote. If it's what the membership want it will happen. If it's not then it shouldn't. Simple as that really.

Again I ask were you at the AGM or the meeting. You continually refuse to answer this. When given an opportunity to give your views in a a consultation exercise, have you contributed? 

You are clearly in the minority and will not accept this. Perhaps if you attended one of these meetings then you would more appreciate the mood of the members and supporters.

The Club is consulting with all stakeholders and should do what is in the best interests of the Club. If you cannot accept this then that is unfortunate. This is for the future of the club and generations of Queen's Park fans still to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Are you suggesting this initiative wouldn't be taking place if the SFA had signed up for another 20 years? The committee began canvassing opinion years ago, and whilst I completely agree that the Hampden situation has hastened things, I believe it's been inevitable ever since we began playing loanees. Re-instating Ross McFarlane's amateur status for a couple of games was one thing (we'd done the same with R S McColl and others 100 years earlier), but that was something completely different.

I'm happy for the club to take this at their own pace to reach the right answer for what's best of the club, so long as they declare now who will be asked to make the final decision however far down the line that may be. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Do you?

I'm not sure it would be if our circumstances weren't changing. There is, in my opinion, only an appetite for change because of what's evolving around us. If we had a steady flow of income and no trapdoor below us, I'd be against the idea of going pro. What would the point be? 

I do think anyone demanding anything "now" is unreasonable, yes. I think it's important to act calmly and without impulse in order to digest what the feedback has been from the support. When that has been done and we convene again, the general feedback can be discussed and then we can then get into the who, why, what and how much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fair Annie and i respect that view. However I would repeat that long before the Hampden debacle, opinion was canvassed against a background of enabling us to regularly compete at a higher level, rather than the current necessity argument. Whether it would have resurfaced again without the loss of Hampden only those concerned know for certain, but what sticks in the back of my mind are the extraordinary lengths that Ross Caven began to go in order to get Gerry Crawley into a position of power at the club right after his initial canvassing failed to get him the outcome he was looking for. So the cynic in me believes it would have come up again by now anyway, not because of the Hampden issue but more because of the fear of the Lowland League trapdoor opening for us.

My lingering concern about not being told now about whether this will be put to the members for a vote or not is whether the Committee will leave making that announcement until the last possible moment because they have no intention of doing so and want the path of least resistance. As others have said, it's inconceivable that they would go down this route without already having taken professional advice on whether a change to the constitution is required (perhaps TMWNN is the club lawyer 🙄), so why are they so reluctant to share that opinion with us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rab-QPFC-1867 said:

Team is looking good I'm confident we can fight for the playoffs hopefully we can kick off a good start away to Stirling on satuday. 

Let's see what tomorrow brings first though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Spider said:

That's fair Annie and i respect that view. However I would repeat that long before the Hampden debacle, opinion was canvassed against a background of enabling us to regularly compete at a higher level, rather than the current necessity argument. Whether it would have resurfaced again without the loss of Hampden only those concerned know for certain, but what sticks in the back of my mind are the extraordinary lengths that Ross Caven began to go in order to get Gerry Crawley into a position of power at the club right after his initial canvassing failed to get him the outcome he was looking for. So the cynic in me believes it would have come up again by now anyway, not because of the Hampden issue but more because of the fear of the Lowland League trapdoor opening for us.

My lingering concern about not being told now about whether this will be put to the members for a vote or not is whether the Committee will leave making that announcement until the last possible moment because they have no intention of doing so and want the path of least resistance. As others have said, it's inconceivable that they would go down this route without already having taken professional advice on whether a change to the constitution is required (perhaps TMWNN is the club lawyer 🙄), so why are they so reluctant to share that opinion with us?

The running of the Club rests in the hands of Committee. You seem insistent that Committee have a vote and give their reasons if there isn't one. You have it all wrong! If a vote is required then Committee should tell the Members why it is necessary. If Committee have the power to proceed without a vote then that is what should happen especially if the consultation process shows a majority in favour of the change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The man with no name said:

IF Committee have the power to proceed without a vote

Well done - you finally nailed it. How do we go about finding out whether they do or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Go the meetings that the President attends and ask the question in person. Three (four?) in the past year and anyone can attend.

Thanks. That's helpful. I really should have known better than to follow the recommended procedure.

image.png.2218c19d2b3d118104be7dc5c61e15ec.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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