Queen's Park 2019/20

[The man with no name]

13 minutes ago, The Spider said:

I will try to explain. The club has a set of rules it must abide by called the Articles of Association. Any change to those rules needs to be formally proposed and if a sufficient number of members support the proposal a meeting of all members needs to be called outlining the proposed change and requiring a majority of those present including proxy votes to enable it to pass. i'm not aware that asking for an indicative show of hands without prior warning at an AGM overrides that procedure.

Clause 6.2 of the articles states "To promote the practice and play of football, cricket, lacrosse, lawn tennis, hockey, bowls, cycle riding, running, jumping, gymnastics, and other athletic sports, games,and exercises of every description, and any other games, pastimes, sports, assaultsat-arms, recreations, amusements, or entertainments, and to buy, sell, exchange, or hire all articles, implements, fixtures, furniture, apparatus, and things used in the playing or practice of such games or pursuits, and any other implements or things used or required thereof, or for the promotion of the objects of the Club, including prizes to be given in any competition or competitions promoted by the Club, and for that purpose to establish and maintain amateur teams of football, and other players."

The key part is the bit I've put in bold. Some might argue it's contextual, but you would need to consider what the intent was when it was originally written. You will note that it's been changed over the years, with the "and other players" bit added to get round the loanees issue. I'm not a lawyer (perhaps someone reading this is and can offer (free!) opinion), but on the basis of the above I think the Committee would be foolhardy to even attempt to make such a momentous change without following due process.

I can understand why some (and potentially a large majority) of supporters want this to go through, but it's genuinely concerning that they appear to be prepared to ignore the designated procedure in order to achieve it.

The Club have signed players on professional contracts. Is a vote now irrelevant as we have already played professional players. The Club can only sign 2 kinds of players under the SPFL rules. Amateur and professional. Amateur is specifically mentioned therefore the only other possible category for "and other players" is professional. Loanees are professionals. Their registrations are transferred to Queen's Park for the period of the loan. So let me recap. We have signed players on professional contracts, we have had players being paid to play registered on professional contracts registered to the Club. 

Why is a vote required?

[The Spider]

19 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

The Club have signed players on professional contracts. Is a vote now irrelevant as we have already played professional players. The Club can only sign 2 kinds of players under the SPFL rules. Amateur and professional. Amateur is specifically mentioned therefore the only other possible category for "and other players" is professional. Loanees are professionals. Their registrations are transferred to Queen's Park for the period of the loan. So let me recap. We have signed players on professional contracts, we have had players being paid to play registered on professional contracts registered to the Club. 

Why is a vote required?

Because it says "amateur team" . At the moment the club do not pay professional players, although we play them as part of the loanee system within our amateur team structure. Our other players are amateur and so get paid expenses only with a "professional" form being used purely to comply with league regulations. If we directly start to pay professional players then we cease to "maintain an amateur team of football" and therefore breach our constitution. This seemed very straightforward to me but your reaction suggests I'm missing something obvious. What is it?

[an86]

2 hours ago, Dooflick said:

I did not attend the meeting the other night but I would have thought that under no circumstances would the Committee not ask the Members and the Members only what their opinion was.  Were all the Club's members there on Thursday? After all the members own the Club.

Without the contribution of non-members, we probably don't even have a club to discuss. Extremely short sighted stuff. 

[The man with no name]

15 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Because it says "amateur team" . At the moment the club do not pay professional players, although we play them as part of the loanee system within our amateur team structure. Our other players are amateur and so get paid expenses only with a "professional" form being used purely to comply with league regulations. If we directly start to pay professional players then we cease to "maintain an amateur team of football" and therefore breach our constitution. This seemed very straightforward to me but your reaction suggests I'm missing something obvious. What is it?

So in the past if the majority of players were on professional registrations then that means our "team" was professional.

If you sign players on Professional registrations, their legal status is professional whether you pay them or not!!!!!

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by The man with no name

[an86]

7 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

So in the past if the majority of players were on professional registrations then that means our "team" was professional.

If you sign players on Professional registrations, their legal status is professional whether you pay them or not!!!!!

 

If we're being completely honest with ourselves, it's been pick n mix amateurism for 20+ years.

[The Spider]

6 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

So in the past if the majority of players were on professional registrations then that means our "team" was professional.

 

Nice try, but not if QP weren't paying their wages (which we weren't!). Simples! You appear to be suggesting that we are constitutionally already a professional club, in which case why is The President even bothering having these meetings?

[The Spider]

3 minutes ago, an86 said:

If we're being completely honest with ourselves, it's been pick n mix amateurism for 20+ years.

Completely true Annie, but all within the confines of our constitution where the wording has been adapted to suit. This is pretty basic stuff. If we are going to take the final step and break down the walls of an already leaking dam then why is it so hard for people to accept that it needs to be done in the proper manner? You may recall that we needed to have votes on changing the wording to allow professional loanees to play and also to allow former professionals to become members, without which we woudn't even have our current President in situ? Why should this be any different?

[The man with no name]

15 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Nice try, but not if QP weren't paying their wages (which we weren't!). Simples! You appear to be suggesting that we are constitutionally already a professional club, in which case why is The President even bothering having these meetings?

Nice of you to ignore my point that if players are registered on professional registrations then LEGALLY they are professional 

You delude yourself all you want!

[williebraveheart]

9 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Completely true Annie, but all within the confines of our constitution where the wording has been adapted to suit. This is pretty basic stuff. If we are going to take the final step and break down the walls of an already leaking dam then why is it so hard for people to accept that it needs to be done in the proper manner? You may recall that we needed to have votes on changing the wording to allow professional loanees to play and also to allow former professionals to become members, without which we woudn't even have our current President in situ? Why should this be any different?

I totally agree, which is why by now basic financial scenarios should have been prepared to put before members and a vote taken. If the vote were for change to professional football then so be it. Sponsors need to be approached now as they prepare budgets at least a year ahead. All this procrastination is harmful to the club. I fully accept that this should be a members only vote as they have given extra financial commitment to the club and presumably have taken the risk of financial liability. I also accept that having been invited to become a member on several occasions it was my choice to decline and so exclude myself from moments such as this. 

[The Spider]

6 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

Nice of you to ignore my point that if players are registered on professional registrations then LEGALLY they are professional 

You delude yourself all you want!

I'm not ignoring that point at all. It's entirely a question of interpretation. You quite rightly highlight the form our players now require to sign, while I highlight that we don't pay our players anything other than expenses, which complies with the legality of the club's constitution. Neither of us are deluded. We simply choose to interpret the same set of circumstances differently which is why several posts on I come back to my original point. The club need to clarify whether they intend to attempt to push this through or put it to the members for a vote.

[The Spider]

6 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

I totally agree, which is why by now basic financial scenarios should have been prepared to put before members and a vote taken. If the vote were for change to professional football then so be it. Sponsors need to be approached now as they prepare budgets at least a year ahead. All this procrastination is harmful to the club. I fully accept that this should be a members only vote as they have given extra financial commitment to the club and presumably have taken the risk of financial liability. I also accept that having been invited to become a member on several occasions it was my choice to decline and so exclude myself from moments such as this. 

Thank-you Willie. It's good to finally have a view from a non-member about how the club need to proceed if they wish to move forward with this.

[The man with no name]

1 minute ago, The Spider said:

I'm not ignoring that point at all. It's entirely a question of interpretation. You quite rightly highlight the form our players now require to sign, while I highlight that we don't pay our players anything other than expenses, which complies with the legality of the club's constitution. Neither of us are deluded. We simply choose to interpret the same set of circumstances differently which is why several posts on I come back to my original point. The club need to clarify whether they intend to attempt to push this through or put it to the members for a vote.

Again I ask if you were at the AGM or the meeting. "Push this through" suggests something underhand. There has been no real objection or opposition at either gatherings. I'm afraid you have to accept that the majority want this!

[williebraveheart]

2 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

Again I ask if you were at the AGM or the meeting. "Push this through" suggests something underhand. There has been no real objection or opposition at either gatherings. I'm afraid you have to accept that the majority want this!

From reading all the posts and having talked to my member friends I would agree that there appears to be a large majority in favour of change. So why cannot the President or the Committee grasp the nettle and declare their intention backed with some financial scenarios and projections and ask for a vote NOW? That is what happens in the outside world.

[The Spider]

If as you say the majority want this then it will happen. That's called democracy, but for some reason you remain reluctant for it to be done the proper way.

[an86]

8 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

From reading all the posts and having talked to my member friends I would agree that there appears to be a large majority in favour of change. So why cannot the President or the Committee grasp the nettle and declare their intention backed with some financial scenarios and projections and ask for a vote NOW? That is what happens in the outside world.

They're consulting the fans. You cannot expect them to come forward with plans when we don't know what we're planning for. That's the next stage. Nothing about this process can possibly be instant. 

[The man with no name]

10 minutes ago, The Spider said:

If as you say the majority want this then it will happen. That's called democracy, but for some reason you remain reluctant for it to be done the proper way.

To change the articles of the club you need 75% of the vote to do so. Why propose a change that isn't necessary and can be derailed by 25% +1 vote.

 

[williebraveheart]

14 minutes ago, an86 said:

They're consulting the fans. You cannot expect them to come forward with plans when we don't know what we're planning for. That's the next stage. Nothing about this process can possibly be instant. 

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? 

[The Spider]

12 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

To change the articles of the club you need 75% of the vote to do so. Why propose a change that isn't necessary and can be derailed by 25% +1 vote.

 

Well, it took a while but suddenly the elephant in the room was unveiled. Precisely why I believe the proposed change is in breach of the constitution, and precisely why you believe it's not. And to come all the way back to where i started all those posts ago.................precisely why we need the Club to make a statement about whether it intends to make this change with or without changing the articles of association. If they feel  (as you do) that no change is required then at that point it would be up to the membership to decide whether they wished to challenge that interpretation, which is probably why the Club appear so reluctant to answer that fundemental question that i have posed of them.

[JT1867]

32 minutes ago, williebraveheart said:

So why cannot the President or the Committee grasp the nettle and declare their intention backed with some financial scenarios and projections and ask for a vote NOW?

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

From the sound of things there has been some preparatry work in the background but no point in doing massive in depth studies into something if there was no appetite amongst the members/supporters to seriously consider the change.

[williebraveheart]

5 minutes ago, JT1867 said:

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

From the sound of things there has been some preparatry work in the background but no point in doing massive in depth studies into something if there was no appetite amongst the members/supporters to seriously consider the change.

I get that, but at the AGM there appeared to be almost unanimous approval of such a change. I just think we should be further down the road than we currently are. It is impossible to come up with detailed in depth studies at the moment but eminently simple to issue some headline "what if" scenarios to paint the picture. On the subject of whether the articles need to be changed surely legal advice could have been sought? I would be surprised if it hasn't.