Queen's Park 2019/20

[houstonspider]

Unfortunately i don't qualify for a vote but it's a members club and can accept that. There are few certainties in life but we tend to operate on the basis of probability and risk. For me its a choice between what sort of club you want going foward. Do you want a club that continues to compete at our current level but has ambitions to compete above where we are, or, the amateur status above all else is the most important thing.

In terms of what you want going foward if its the first option then you need to vote the new clause through. But, if amateur status is the most important thing to you, and you vote againt the clause, then taking risk and probability into account the future is most likely to be the Lowland League sooner rather than later, and probably the South of Scotland League after that.

Where do you want us to be playing our football ?

[The Spider]

11 hours ago, Boris the Spider said:

EGM  of members in October to vote on going pro. 75% majority required.

I can understand Gerry's motives in wanting to make sure there is no dubiety. Plus the fact that only 7% of the people who voted at last meeting wanted to stay amateur

But 75% is a high threshold to meet. It won't take that many people with their heads in the sand to ensure it isn't met. 

Hope for the future of QP that Gerry's gamble pays off.

To be fair to Gerry I don't think he had much choice in the matter and if, as I hope the Club would have had the sense to do, they sought legal advice before making last night's announcement, Gerry may been told it would have been a big gamble to press on and ignore the articles of association.

As far as the 75% is concerned I've previously stated that I believe that to be undemocratic and if you or any other member cares to put forward a motion to make it 51% then I'd support it. What I've been against from the start is simply sweeping the biggest decision in our history through without following due process, and if a simple majority of members wanted the club to turn pro then I'd have no issue with that. If none of you propose that motion and the amendment fails to meet the 75% threshold then you'll have no right to moan about it aferwards as it lies within your own hands to find sufficient support to make that proposal and get that passed at the EGM before the crucial vote.

If what TMWNN says is true, then surely the President and Committee would also sign up to support the 75% to 51% change, as would I.

[Mick1867]

26 minutes ago, houstonspider said:

Where do you want us to be playing our football ?

Well one person was overheard commenting at a recent match that he didn't care if we ended up playing on a gravel pitch, as long as we stay amateur.

This is the sort of attitude we are sadly dealing with ( and when did any team last play on a gravel pitch anyway? )

[houstonspider]

Well one person was overheard commenting at a recent match that he didn't care if we ended up playing on a gravel pitch, as long as we stay amateur.
This is the sort of attitude we are sadly dealing with ( and when did any team last play on a gravel pitch anyway? )

Watched by 10 people and a couple of dogs, with the odd jaickie swinging by.

[The Spider]

13 minutes ago, Mick1867 said:

( and when did any team last play on a gravel pitch anyway? )

ah.....scraping red blaes out your knees and grimacing as the bath water began to cover the Mitre Mouldmaster impression on your thigh - those were the days......................not!

[The man with no name]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

 

If what TMWNN says is true, then surely the President and Committee would also sign up to support the 75% to 51% change, as would I.

Not being a legal expert but my understanding is that to change your articles of association you require a special resolution to do so. Under Company Law any special resolution requires 75% of the votes cast to pass. We can't just decide to make it 50% +1 and go for it.

[an86]

If a significant majority of members and supporters wishes are scuttled by a minority of members, the atmosphere around the club will become utterly toxic. As has been said, those who want to remain amateur will have to take the lead if this falls. 

It would be difficult to see those who have advocated change sticking around to implement a plan that they see as detrimental to the future of the club. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

42 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

Not being a legal expert but my understanding is that to change your articles of association you require a special resolution to do so. Under Company Law any special resolution requires 75% of the votes cast to pass. We can't just decide to make it 50% +1 and go for it.

[Hampden Diehard]

If such a situation occurred I would expect resignations from Committee to follow. As I have said before, those that vote against have to be prepared to step up and run the Club. If they veto the will of the Club for their beliefs of what Queen's Park is then sitting on the sidelines is not acceptable. They have to accept responsibility and deliver the Club they want.

The problem, of course, is that people might have a strong view against the move to professionalism but with absolutely no interest (or aptitude, or both) in running the Club. I can understand that, as it's an onerous shift, but, you're right, they have to be willing to step up. Compared to QP's situation, Brexit's a skoosh.

The Committee are, quite rightly, being proactive in the face of what's being thrown at us and feel that time is of the essence. If we're going to do this, let"s get it done sharpish. And it pains me to say that....... very much.

We will always have our past but we have to plan for the future.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, The man with no name said:

Not being a legal expert but my understanding is that to change your articles of association you require a special resolution to do so. Under Company Law any special resolution requires 75% of the votes cast to pass. We can't just decide to make it 50% +1 and go for it.

According to clause 50 of the articles of association " The Committee may, whenever they shall think fit, and shall, upon receiving a requisition in writing, signed by not less than 5% of Members, convene an Extraordinary General Meeting. Such requisition shall express the objects of the Extraordinary General Meeting proposed to be called, and shall be served upon the Committee by being left at the registered office of the Club, and if the Committee do not proceed to convene the Meeting within twenty-one days from the receipt of such requisition, the requisitionists may themselves convene the meeting".

All I was saying was that if someone wants to call an EGM to propose that the 75% majority be reduced to 51% then i'd support it as I agree it's unfair that the tail should be allowed to wag the dog. If such a motion would itself then require a 75% majority in order to reduce the majority for any subsequent votes to 51% then it kind of defeats the purpose. You're probably right about it being covered by Company law as beyond clause 50 the procedure doesn't appear to be covered within the articles.

From the outset I think the President's hands were tied by Company law and that it was always going to have to come down to a members vote. If there is a compelling argument for going professional then it's up to The President and Committee to make that case so obvious that it leaves little doubt that it's the best way to secure the future of the club. In that event I'd vote for it, even though it would pain me greatly to do so as I'd be losing a big part of what drew me to the club in the first place, and I'd hope that fellow members would have the sense to do likewise.

The greatest danger to the club's future is that the motion fails by the narrowest of margins (only 74% for), because such an outcome would be even more damaging than a 50/50 split where there were still a large number of members against the change. My main hope therefore, whatever the outcome, is that the vote is decisive so that the bulk of the membership can move forward as one.

[PASSANDMOVE]

A lifelong supporter , now almost 60! Been a season ticket holder off and on but never a member (just not me) wish I had as the vote coming up could have us sink or swim.  Cant believe that some of the members would want to stay amateur but really afraid that at least 25%  will . 

Was at last nights meeting and while I think that those attending would have passed (just saying) the resolution we all know a lot of members weren't there and I know some that haven't been to any meeting so are they aware how important this is to Queen's future.  Gerry Crawley , made a good job of informing those there of this momentous decision but more detail is obviously required by some (some predicted figures would help I think) The committee need to reach out to all members (letter, e-mail) with a bit more detail , it might make the difference ?

Feel a bit hopeless , having to sit it out and hope that the vote goes the right way. Wasn't brave enough to speak up last night but given whats a stake thought the meeting would have been a bit more passionate ?  As has been said , this could be the death of our club , cant see some of the directors hanging around if they don't get the right result - Slippery slope from there!

If changing the constitution to 51% is possible then hopefully it can happen in time.

[The Spider]

2 minutes ago, PASSANDMOVE said:

Gerry Crawley , made a good job of informing those there of this momentous decision but more detail is obviously required by some (some predicted figures would help I think) The committee need to reach out to all members (letter, e-mail) with a bit more detail , it might make the difference ?

You make a very important point there and one I wholeheartedly agree with. It's absolutely essential that when the invites for the meeting are issued that they are accompanied by two business models with figures to back up the predicted outcomes for each. There will no doubt be reluctance  to do in case they pass into the public domain, but it's necessary for two reasons.

Firstly it allows members to scrutinise the numbers in their own time rather than just at the meeting itself.

Secondly, and even more importantly, we shouln't have a scenario where a decision of this importance can be affected by proxy votes where the absent member is voting with his heart without access to all the necessary information.

[houstonspider]

You make a very important point there and one I wholeheartedly agree with. It's absolutely essential that when the invites for the meeting are issued that they are accompanied by two business models with figures to back up the predicted outcomes for each. There will no doubt be reluctance  to do in case they pass into the public domain, but it's necessary for two reasons.
Firstly it allows members to scrutinise the numbers in their own time rather than just at the meeting itself.
Secondly, and even more importantly, we shouln't have a scenario where a decision of this importance can be affected by proxy votes where the absent member is voting with his heart without access to all the necessary information.

I'm not sure members are going to have that level of detail available. I got the impression last night the vote would be more about ideology as my reading from Gerry was that professionalism takes different forms and we don't know yet which form we will pursue. My reading of the intention of the vote is to open up the professional option and then explore what that could look like. A business model for staying amateur is limited also as it depends on where we are playing.

[The man with no name]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

You make a very important point there and one I wholeheartedly agree with. It's absolutely essential that when the invites for the meeting are issued that they are accompanied by two business models with figures to back up the predicted outcomes for each. There will no doubt be reluctance  to do in case they pass into the public domain, but it's necessary for two reasons.

Firstly it allows members to scrutinise the numbers in their own time rather than just at the meeting itself.

Secondly, and even more importantly, we shouln't have a scenario where a decision of this importance can be affected by proxy votes where the absent member is voting with his heart without access to all the necessary information.

People have to live in the real world. Anyone who thinks the Club can produce 2 business plans, one called professional, one called amateur is deluded! It's impossible. Football income and expenditure is based on so many different scenarios. Where you finish in the league for example. If we finish top or are promoted via the play-offs  then our income will be greater than it is if we finish bottom and are relegated to the Lowland League. Most football clubs run on an annual basis - the current year. Jim Duffy wasn't told his playing budget for this season until 2 days before Dumbarton's first game! The biggest financial concern our Club has is the loss of £330,000 per annum. We have to address that! Having spoken to Committee Members about this, the Club have not come up with a viable solution to do this while staying amateur. That is after NO Youth programme, NO Community programme. The Club can't be sustained staying amateur and that is maintaining our league status! If we drop to the Lowland League then it's financial armegedon. No one is saying Professionalism is anymore viable but it does allow the Club to retain its Youth programme and the opportunity to get vital compensation for the great young players we produce and walk out the door for nothing!

This shouldn't be about amateur v professional. It should be about what Club do we want for the future. One that will have no Youth system, No Community sole, be 11 players playing for the jersey (torn, worn-out, faded as we can't replace them) in whatever league we can or about an SPFL team with exciting young talent we produce and who go on to play at the highest level. A place where fans are proud to go to and know that Queen's Park are still relevant and an alternative to watching the Old Firm and all the off-field nonsense that surrounds them.

Your Club needs all Members and supporters to help it survive and be relevant in the future! Do the right thing!

[Hampden Diehard]

My take from last night is that the Members will be asked to change the Articles to allow professionalism. This allows the focus to be on that single item. Financial modelling will follow as will the detail of how the change will be implemented. I agree with this approach; the status of our playing staff is the fundamental issue. The rest will fall into place. One step at a time.

[PASSANDMOVE]

2 hours ago, The Spider said:

 

Secondly, and even more importantly, we shouln't have a scenario where a decision of this importance can be affected by proxy votes where the absent member is voting with his heart without access to all the necessary information.

The proxy votes by absent uninformed members is what worries me - not asking for information to be detailed but even an expansion of bullet points from last night.

[Dooflick]

2 hours ago, PASSANDMOVE said:

The proxy votes by absent uninformed members is what worries me - not asking for information to be detailed but even an expansion of bullet points from last night.

The proxy votes worry me as well. It is only a couple of years ago that we had a vote for the position of President when two former Presidents stood against one another. One of them was still on the Committee and the other one had retired a few years ago. The one not on the Committee sent out a letter stating what his aims were, one of which was that he would, if elected, immediately start talking to the SFA regarding a new deal as he felt that the club had missed the opportunity to do so when they had agreed to give the SFA an extra six months on the current deal, two months after he had retired. The committee sent out a letter to the members in reply ,signed by the then President and Treasurer, urging members to vote for the member who was still on the Committee as they had everything in hand, and look how things have turned out!!!  I understand from talking to the one who had retired, that on asking the club  privately as to how the voting went it turned out that more people in the hall that evening had voted for him but the Committee had secured enough proxy votes from members who did not attend matches and were all for the status quo and did not want to rock the boat. It is a big worry, and I am  hoping that these proxy voters will not stop this club from  from doing the right thing with regards to our future. Let us hope that whatever letter goes out for this EGM, which as a season ticket holder I will not be able to attend,will be enough to to get the 75% required for us to go upward and onward.

[The Spider]

3 hours ago, PASSANDMOVE said:

The proxy votes by absent uninformed members is what worries me - not asking for information to be detailed but even an expansion of bullet points from last night.

 

24 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

The proxy votes worry me as well. It is only a couple of years ago that we had a vote for the position of President when two former Presidents stood against one another. One of them was still on the Committee and the other one had retired a few years ago. The one not on the Committee sent out a letter stating what his aims were, one of which was that he would, if elected, immediately start talking to the SFA regarding a new deal as he felt that the club had missed the opportunity to do so when they had agreed to give the SFA an extra six months on the current deal, two months after he had retired. The committee sent out a letter to the members in reply ,signed by the then President and Treasurer, urging members to vote for the member who was still on the Committee as they had everything in hand, and look how things have turned out!!!  I understand from talking to the one who had retired, that on asking the club  privately as to how the voting went it turned out that more people in the hall that evening had voted for him but the Committee had secured enough proxy votes from members who did not attend matches and were all for the status quo and did not want to rock the boat. It is a big worry, and I am  hoping that these proxy voters will not stop this club from  from doing the right thing with regards to our future. Let us hope that whatever letter goes out for this EGM, which as a season ticket holder I will not be able to attend,will be enough to to get the 75% required for us to go upward and onward.

Obviously i agree with you both, but apparently we aren't living in the real world.............the one where we don't send out sufficient information and rely on the uninformed to do the right thing apparently. I have spoken with a number of members (some on committee!) who attended the previous briefing and who supported the move to turn professional in principle, but who also commented on the form that they would need to see a financial comparison first.

Unless you live in an over-complicated world it's very simple to produce two illustrative business models, each based on the same scenario (e.g. finishing 5th in the league and going out of the cup at the first hurdle). That way members will have an idea of the potential extra financial benefits versus the likely additional costs. If the committee are unable/unwilling to do that, then it simply becomes a trust based issue and that's much harder to sell..................just ask Boris..................no, the other one.

[Ben Reilly]

The proxy votes by absent uninformed members is what worries me - not asking for information to be detailed but even an expansion of bullet points from last night.

This is exactly what concerns me. I have no idea how many members there are, or what proportion of them were at the meeting, but my worry is that there may be a significant enough number who for whatever reason haven't been at the meetings to hear the arguments put forward by the president, and will proxy vote to preserve the status quo without having the information that many non members have been given. If the show of hands last night is any thing to go by, and it's probably not the best barometer, then it will be touch and go to get 75%.
The exit poll results of the previous meeting only had 7% against, but it also only had 58% for. (I dont remember if those percentages were much different if only taking the responses of members) It's the 35% who were open to the idea but wanted more information before committing that may sway it one way or the other.
While I'm of the opinion that we need to go for it, I do understand and respect the view of any who while warm to the idea feel they cant support it without more detailed information.
If its a no because everyone has heard both sides of the argument and made their decision based on the information presented, then fair enough. However if it's a no because 26% of members who never engaged with the process vote for the status quo, then that's a difficult one to swallow.

[Hampden Diehard]

I wouldn't get too hung up on financial projections. The treasurer could rattle up something in five minutes and it wouldn't be worth the fag packet it was written on if we are relegated. All you need to know is that if we get sucked into the vortex of the Lowland League, we will struggle to recover our position, stature and financial-wise. Income there will be less (lower gate receipts and SFA / SPFL grants) and costs (e.g. match balls and officials have to be paid for whilst they don't have to be in the SPFL) may well go up.

There is no financial case here that really needs to be considered; that's not the issue. Queen's have cut their cloth accordingly for 152 years and I'm sure they'd continue to do so, whatever the outcome. The issue is saving ourselves from relegation. We're fecked if we go down; dead simple - in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be interested in even entertaining the idea of professionalism if the situation were otherwise.