Queen's Park 2019/20

[The Spider]

40 minutes ago, Glasgow1999 said:

It's a legal requirement to make the change advocated that 75% of membership must agree. People's views about whether it is justified or not is not relevant.

Yes for your first sentence, but I respectfully suggest you are completely wrong with your second. If the motion fails but has a majority support, as a democrat personally I see nothing wrong with The President making the argument that a majority of members are in favour of the motion and appealing to those who voted against to change their minds in a second vote at another EGM. Now you are perfectly at liberty to say you disagree with that line of thought, but I simply ask how would that be illegal per the comparison I made with Muirfield Golf Club?

[Ben Reilly]

It's a legal requirement to make the change advocated that 75% of membership must agree. People's views about whether it is justified or not is not relevant. 
 

Can anyone clarify whether to make the change to professional it needs 75% of the entire membership in favour, or 75% of the votes cast on the night?

[Ben Reilly]

Committee members have always and will if our current structure continues the option to stand down at anytime. If think it is very dangerous to advocate that members vote in a particular way because otherwise committee members may resign. Votes should be made on the basis of proposition solely. 
Why would the youth system and community programs end if the vote was not positive? As has been pointed out a number of times the Club is in a cash positive position, able to maintain these structures and would also not have to start paying wages. Most other clubs dont have these structures primarily as they have to pay players. Where is the evidence that turning professional will increase the Clubs finances?
Going professional would also not guarantee being relegated. Whatever status the Club has this can never be ignored and so decisions about the ground need to be made on this basis. However, the better the ground is will help its commercial viability for lots of different options.
 
 

"Where is the evidence that turning professional will increase the Clubs finances?"

Surely the best way to increase club finances is success on the pitch, which increases the chances of bringing in more people through the turnstiles, more sponsorship, and more prize money.
To give ourselves the best chance of success we need to be able to attract and retain the highest standard of player we can.
To do that we need to be able to offer competitive remuneration.

[The man with no name]

7 minutes ago, Ben Reilly said:

2 hours ago, Glasgow1999 said:

It's a legal requirement to make the change advocated that 75% of membership must agree. People's views about whether it is justified or not is not relevant. 
 

Can anyone clarify whether to make the change to professional it needs 75% of the entire membership in favour, or 75% of the votes cast on the night?

75% of votes cast. 

[williebraveheart]

1 minute ago, The man with no name said:

75% of votes cast. 

Phew!

[The man with no name]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

Yes for your first sentence, but I respectfully suggest you are completely wrong with your second. If the motion fails but has a majority support, as a democrat personally I see nothing wrong with The President making the argument that a majority of members are in favour of the motion and appealing to those who voted against to change their minds in a second vote at another EGM. Now you are perfectly at liberty to say you disagree with that line of thought, but I simply ask how would that be illegal per the comparison I made with Muirfield Golf Club?

I don't have an issue with a second vote but I think that there has to be a large clear majority in favour of the change. For me anything above 66% merits a second vote as you have double the number of Members for it than against it.

[Hampden Diehard]

From what I could make out at the information events so far, there is an acceptance that the playing side is doomed unless we accept professionalism. Even those whom I expected to be agin it (me included), have reluctantly accepted it. Where the vote may be lost could be the silent voters who haven't been along to hear what's being said and muster 26% of the vote.

For more proof of the change in the game at our level, have a look at the results on Saturday. Penicuik and Broxburn would be on nobody's radar before panning Stenny and Cowden in the Cup. Teams like them see League status as something that is within their potential. We need to up our game; deadly simple.

[an86]

3 hours ago, The Spider said:

Nor can I, but it's not what would happen in an "overwhelming" majority scenario that I'm seeking further clarification on. What would you want to do in a 51 v 49 small majority scenario - sit at your keyboard and complain about it or have you a practical suggestion, perhaps along the lines of what i was advocating?

There are various ways in which the membership and wider support can both use the rules and make their feelings known, if it comes to it. I hope it doesn't. We'll cross that bridge if it comes to it. 

[Glasgow1999]

1 hour ago, Ben Reilly said:

"Where is the evidence that turning professional will increase the Clubs finances?"

Surely the best way to increase club finances is success on the pitch, which increases the chances of bringing in more people through the turnstiles, more sponsorship, and more prize money.
To give ourselves the best chance of success we need to be able to attract and retain the highest standard of player we can.
To do that we need to be able to offer competitive remuneration.

When the Club has been in the first division gates were not greatly higher, it largely depends on the opposition and if they have significant support. Prize money also is not hugely significant in the higher league. I also dont see sponsors falling over themselves just because the Club could be higher in the current league or even in the next league. However, wages could be a huge cost and over weigh any benefits of potentially doing better in games. 

[Glasgow1999]

3 hours ago, The Spider said:

Yes for your first sentence, but I respectfully suggest you are completely wrong with your second. If the motion fails but has a majority support, as a democrat personally I see nothing wrong with The President making the argument that a majority of members are in favour of the motion and appealing to those who voted against to change their minds in a second vote at another EGM. Now you are perfectly at liberty to say you disagree with that line of thought, but I simply ask how would that be illegal per the comparison I made with Muirfield Golf Club?

You can have as many votes as you like, but you still need 75%.

[an86]

4 minutes ago, Glasgow1999 said:

When the Club has been in the first division gates were not greatly higher, it largely depends on the opposition and if they have significant support. Prize money also is not hugely significant in the higher league. I also dont see sponsors falling over themselves just because the Club could be higher in the current league or even in the next league. However, wages could be a huge cost and over weigh any benefits of potentially doing better in games. 

Gate money would go through the floor in the Lowland League due to the drop in gate prices and even poorer away supports. As a result, sponsors are even less likely to be interested in something with fewer people viewing it. 

Prize money may not be spectacular, but, again, it's a helluva lot better than it is in the Lowland League. 

Our success off the park will largely be dictated by what happens on the park. That means we have to give ourselves the best possible chance of playing at the highest possible level. It may well be that we have to change just to stand still, and that level our current League Two with the odd promotion to League One is at good as it gets.

Anything below our current level is nothing short of a disaster, particularly if we're not making anything from the youth system and aren't paying players.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, Glasgow1999 said:

You can have as many votes as you like, but you still need 75%.

Agreed. I simply observe (as in the case of Muirfield Golf Club) that if a concept gains momentum then subsequent EGM votes have been known to considerably change. IF the first vote fails, I think it's very important to note the margin. If a majority vote is against professionalism, then that should be the end of that debate for the forseeable fututure as it should also be if the motion passes.  If however as TMWNN suggests, between 66% and 74% are in favour, then I'd suggest that a second vote is almost inevitable as there will be rightful pressure on the others to re-consider their position purely on democratic grounds. Any in-between outcome is most undesirable and will do nothing to unite the club going forward.

[Ginaro]

As an outsider reading this thread it seems like the biggest problem is there's no status quo option available to the club. No matter if you vote to stay amateur or go professional, things are changing with QP moving out of Hampden and the chance of relegation increasing with another League Two team likely to be relegated this season.

So it's not really a case of losing the vote and just carrying on as normal as an amateur club - both outcomes need to involve planning for life without the prestige of Hampden, and the possibility of playing Lowland League football with the resultant loss of the ~£60k prize money as an SPFL club.

[The Spider]

41 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

As an outsider reading this thread it seems like the biggest problem is there's no status quo option available to the club. No matter if you vote to stay amateur or go professional, things are changing with QP moving out of Hampden and the chance of relegation increasing with another League Two team likely to be relegated this season.

So it's not really a case of losing the vote and just carrying on as normal as an amateur club - both outcomes need to involve planning for life without the prestige of Hampden, and the possibility of playing Lowland League football with the resultant loss of the ~£60k prize money as an SPFL club.

It depends entirely on the context that "status quo" is used in as remaining amateur is the "status quo" as far as our constitution is concerned. Beyond that of course you are pefectly correct in everything else you say as we face huge change whichever route we go down, and things will never be the same again. Some actively embrace the possibilities that turning professional might bring whilst others are concerned that the extra expense would drain our reserves over a period of time, but for others it's simply a question of damned if we do, damned if we don't, so which is now the least worse option.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

4 hours ago, The man with no name said:

75% of votes cast. 

You must have missed this, put it up a week or two ago. From Companies House...

To change articles by special resolution at a meeting of the shareholders requires:

• holding a meeting of the board of directors to arrange calling of a ‘general meeting’ of the shareholders to circulate the proposal to change the articles;
• hold the general meeting at which the resolution to change the articles will be passed by a voting majority of at least 75% of shareholders;
• the directors then note that a special resolution has been passed and that they have decided to send it with the new articles to Companies House;
• a certified copy of the special resolution, along with a copy of the new articles is to be sent to Companies House within 15 days of the general meeting at which it is passed.

[an86]

I know not everybody is on social media, but saw Steven Canning post this and thought folk might like to contribute if they're able. Can't imagine what his brother and the family are going through. 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by an86

[The man with no name]

27 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

You must have missed this, put it up a week or two ago. From Companies House...

To change articles by special resolution at a meeting of the shareholders requires:

• holding a meeting of the board of directors to arrange calling of a ‘general meeting’ of the shareholders to circulate the proposal to change the articles;
• hold the general meeting at which the resolution to change the articles will be passed by a voting majority of at least 75% of shareholders;
• the directors then note that a special resolution has been passed and that they have decided to send it with the new articles to Companies House;
• a certified copy of the special resolution, along with a copy of the new articles is to be sent to Companies House within 15 days of the general meeting at which it is passed.

Voting majority are the key 2 words so it's 75% of votes cast!

[Hampden Diehard]

To add to the woes of playing in the Lowland League and the decrease in income, costs go up for (I think that I'm correct to say) match balls and officials. Possibly also player insurance.

It never rains but it pours.

[an86]

Back to the football, our current points average would see us finish on around 32 points. Since the playoffs came in, that'd have seen us finish 10th, 10th, 9th and 9th. Saturday is do or die for me or we have to change it. 

[Anonymous Spider]

I wonder if it makes sense to keep things ticking over until after the vote. I’d like to think we‘ve got a plan for either scenario?

If the proposal doesn’t pass, we may well need to change the manager to give the Club a lift as much as to give the team a lift.