Jump to content

Queen's Park 2019/20


Recommended Posts

So the bare minimum would be to put a roof on that small open stand left over from the commonwealth games? Plus turnstiles, kiosks for food and that would be it?

Hopefully they release some sort of detailed plan going forward. Once the whole pro/amateur issue is settled.
I think so, but the concept pictures we've been shown include a second stand on the other side.
As far as I can gather, anything 'new' would be built around what is already there, so the social club, changing rooms etc would remain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Northsea80 said:

So the bare minimum would be to put a roof on that small open stand left over from the commonwealth games? Plus turnstiles, kiosks for food and that would be it?

Hopefully they release some sort of detailed plan going forward. Once the whole pro/amateur issue is settled.

Two stands of around 900 with a safe standing section in each stand is what has been mooted. We may not require a second stand in the worst case scenario of playing Lowland League football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, an86 said:

Why on earth would/should they stick around and enact a way forward that they believe is going to be harmful to the club?

Because they aren't quitters and can handle adversity. It's something people who hold positions of authority generally do, and having spent a lot of time in the company of 4 of them during the last 30+ years, I'd be both astonished and disappointed if those individuals didn't share that view. As for any of the remainder, if they are genuinely indicating that they would chuck it if things don't go their way, then that reflects very badly on them particularly if they are using that threat as leverage to sway members' judgement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Because they aren't quitters and can handle adversity. It's something people who hold positions of authority generally do, and having spent a lot of time in the company of 4 of them during the last 30+ years, I'd be both astonished and disappointed if those individuals didn't share that view. As for any of the remainder, if they are genuinely indicating that they would chuck it if things don't go their way, then that reflects very badly on them particularly if they are using that threat as leverage to sway members' judgement.

 

To be completely honest, it just sounds like the people who want to remain amateur want to take the decision and take none of the responsibility for the fallout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two stands of around 900 with a safe standing section in each stand is what has been mooted. We may not require a second stand in the worst case scenario of playing Lowland League football. 


For all it’s supposed faults I actually really like Hampden as a stadium. Mainly for nostalgic reasons.
However I’d be enthused about a move to Lesser Hampden and a fit for purpose ground for Queens Park going forward.

I never enjoyed watching Glasgow Warriors play at Firhill, the move to scotsoun though not purpose built for Glasgow brought about a change in atmosphere and attitude around the club and they’ve made giant strides forward in that time in terms of attendance figures and the upward trajectory of the playing side (ignoring this seasons abysmal start)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, an86 said:

I was of the same opinion until a couple of weeks ago, possibly in denial. When you look at the body of league results under Roberts, it really does make pretty grim reading. Does anyone have faith in us putting together a run of results? 

I'm not sure the players know what they're meant to be doing and there's nobody on or off the pitch vocally demanding that we maintain a certain standard. The heads go down far too easily. 

I suspect Roberts will continue for now, but the committee should be putting contingency plans in place. Even right now, I wouldn't be against Reilly and Quinno taking the team until the decision is made on status. They might just spark a reaction out of the players over a short period. How long do we give it? Do we wait until we're actually bottom? 

Beyond that, the job is not an unattractive one if we change status. Someone along the lines of Stevie Aitken, who did a fine job at Stranraer before having Dumbarton punch well above their weight for a couple of seasons could be a good fit. If we remain amateur, it ultimately doesn't matter who we appoint. Even a successful appointment would just be delaying the inevitable. We'll have admitted to ourselves that we see ourselves as a Lowland League club. 

 

MR needs more time I’d say. However I see the points made here. Going forward it seems the club needs people who know how it runs so Reilly quinno not a bad shout either. The youth team got to the semi finals of the cup last year which is punching well beyond our weight and we seen numerous players come through off the back of it was this quinno and Reilly team too??

Link to comment
Share on other sites



For all it’s supposed faults I actually really like Hampden as a stadium. Mainly for nostalgic reasons.
However I’d be enthused about a move to Lesser Hampden and a fit for purpose ground for Queens Park going forward.

I never enjoyed watching Glasgow Warriors play at Firhill, the move to scotsoun though not purpose built for Glasgow brought about a change in atmosphere and attitude around the club and they’ve made giant strides forward in that time in terms of attendance figures and the upward trajectory of the playing side (ignoring this seasons abysmal start)
Glad you've joined this forum. You're affirming a number of comments I've made on here in the last few months.
Stick around [emoji6]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Spider said:

Because they aren't quitters and can handle adversity. It's something people who hold positions of authority generally do, and having spent a lot of time in the company of 4 of them during the last 30+ years, I'd be both astonished and disappointed if those individuals didn't share that view. As for any of the remainder, if they are genuinely indicating that they would chuck it if things don't go their way, then that reflects very badly on them particularly if they are using that threat as leverage to sway members' judgement.

 

Wow!

 In the scenario that having put together a strategy and plan to mitigate the biggest risk to the future of the Club - relegation to the Lowland League (or lower) that is backed by the majority of Members but not 75% you expect them to carry out the wishes of the minority. You expect Committee Members to build half a football stadium, dismantle the Youth System, stop the Community programme, watch the team be relegated to football oblivion. You expect the people who saw this coming and attempted to stop it to carry on and destroy the Club for the minority. If they don't it will reflect badly on them! What about the minority accepting the will of the majority. 

I want the Committee to present a credible plan to the Members and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Members. If the minority do not accept the decision of the majority of the Club then that reflects badly on them and they should be prepared to run the Club in the manner they voted for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NathanQP said:

Imagine wanting a half built stadium and to play in the lower leagues just for the sake of tradition.

Don't forget fawning over a youth system that will cease to operate if you get your way. Never forget the fawning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deary deary me. The wailing on this thread has just reached new decibel levels. I will try to keep this as simple as possible as some people seem to be struggling with their comprehension levels.

  1. If the club's business plans make it clear that turning professional is the best option for the club then I will vote in favour of that, and would hope that as many of my fellow members would do likewise.
  2. I'm in favour of this being a simple majority vote, and have repeatedly said I would support any initiative to produce that outcome, even if it took a second vote to achieve it.
  3. However, in the event that the motion fails to carry, I had hoped that the club could put all of this behind it and pull together to make the best of the situation that we would then find ourselves in.

Sadly, based on what i am reading on this site, there appears to be a prevailing opinion that in that event we should simply give up and in doing so would actually hasten a drop to the Lowland League. That gentlemen, is an appalling defeatist attitutude, and one I simply wish to completely disassociate myself from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Deary deary me. The wailing on this thread has just reached new decibel levels. I will try to keep this as simple as possible as some people seem to be struggling with their comprehension levels.

  1. If the club's business plans make it clear that turning professional is the best option for the club then I will vote in favour of that, and would hope that as many of my fellow members would do likewise.
  2. I'm in favour of this being a simple majority vote, and have repeatedly said I would support any initiative to produce that outcome, even if it took a second vote to achieve it.
  3. However, in the event that the motion fails to carry, I had hoped that the club could put all of this behind it and pull together to make the best of the situation that we would then find ourselves in.

Sadly, based on what i am reading on this site, there appears to be a prevailing opinion that in that event we should simply give up and in doing so would actually hasten a drop to the Lowland League. That gentlemen, is an appalling defeatist attitutude, and one I simply wish to completely disassociate myself from.

It's not a case of giving up. It's a case of associating ourselves with reality. The idea that we can continue as an amateur club in the league with a tidal wave of junior and Lowland League clubs battering on the door is absurd. It will be a "when" rather than an "if." That's not defeatist, it's just an awareness of what's going on around us. It's actually important for this season. We're in big trouble and need to give ourselves the best tools to dig out. 

It's already tough with Hampden in the equation. It's only going to get tougher. There is only one way we can go. Changing doesn't guarantee success, but nobody will be asking themselves if we would have stayed up if we'd remained amateur. We will be asking ourselves what might have been if we'd only grasped the chance to change. 

Edited by an86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Deary deary me. The wailing on this thread has just reached new decibel levels. I will try to keep this as simple as possible as some people seem to be struggling with their comprehension levels.

  1. If the club's business plans make it clear that turning professional is the best option for the club then I will vote in favour of that, and would hope that as many of my fellow members would do likewise.
  2. I'm in favour of this being a simple majority vote, and have repeatedly said I would support any initiative to produce that outcome, even if it took a second vote to achieve it.
  3. However, in the event that the motion fails to carry, I had hoped that the club could put all of this behind it and pull together to make the best of the situation that we would then find ourselves in.

Sadly, based on what i am reading on this site, there appears to be a prevailing opinion that in that event we should simply give up and in doing so would actually hasten a drop to the Lowland League. That gentlemen, is an appalling defeatist attitutude, and one I simply wish to completely disassociate myself from.

In point 3, let's say that we have a second vote and it achieves 73% for and 27% against.

You would have a situation that the aspirations of the Members cannot be carried out by the Committee. That is an untenable position, how can any Board carry on in that position especially as their actions led to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

In point 3, let's say that we have a second vote and it achieves 73% for and 27% against. You would have a situation that the aspirations of the Members cannot be carried out by the Committee. That is an untenable position, how can any Board carry on in that position especially as their actions led to it!

In that case I'd concede that 1 in 4 of our membership were obstinately in favour of following our club in the Lowland League, condemn them for failing to respect the wishes of the majority (assuming that the 1st vote had at least 51% in favour), and propose a 3rd vote to get it over the line. You may remember the case in the not too distant past where stubborn members of a renowned golf club who refused to accept lady members were eventually made to see common sense, so I belive the precedent exists, unless our resident expert in Company Law wishes to correct me.

What I wouldn't do is throw my toys out the pram and meekly resign. Perhaps some of the Committee need to supplement their breakfast cereal with some moral fibre if they lack the willingness to pursue the long game? Sending them on a lateral thinking course to improve their mental dexterity might also be in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The man with no name said:

Wow!

 In the scenario that having put together a strategy and plan to mitigate the biggest risk to the future of the Club - relegation to the Lowland League (or lower) that is backed by the majority of Members but not 75% you expect them to carry out the wishes of the minority. You expect Committee Members to build half a football stadium, dismantle the Youth System, stop the Community programme, watch the team be relegated to football oblivion. You expect the people who saw this coming and attempted to stop it to carry on and destroy the Club for the minority. If they don't it will reflect badly on them! What about the minority accepting the will of the majority. 

I want the Committee to present a credible plan to the Members and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Members. If the minority do not accept the decision of the majority of the Club then that reflects badly on them and they should be prepared to run the Club in the manner they voted for!

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, an86 said:

It's not a case of giving up. It's a case of associating ourselves with reality. The idea that we can continue as an amateur club in the league with a tidal wave of junior and Lowland League clubs battering on the door is absurd. It will be a "when" rather than an "if." That's not defeatist, it's just an awareness of what's going on around us. It's actually important for this season. We're in big trouble and need to give ourselves the best tools to dig out. 

It's already tough with Hampden in the equation. It's only going to get tougher. There is only one way we can go. Changing doesn't guarantee success, but nobody will be asking themselves if we would have stayed up if we'd remained amateur. We will be asking ourselves what might have been if we'd only grasped the chance to change. 

So if a first vote produces a majority in favour, but fails to reach the 75% threshold, are you going to give up or harness your admirable passion and try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Glasgow1999 said:

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.

That is the other side of the coin and why it's so important that the Club makes a sufficiently strong case for turning pro in the documentation it will be handing out at the forthcoming meeting (and hopefully mailing to all members shortly thereafter). If it fails to make the decision an easy one and the motion fails, then they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Spider said:

So if a first vote produces a majority in favour, but fails to reach the 75% threshold, are you going to give up or harness your admirable passion and try again?

I cannot foresee a circumstance where the wider Queen's Park support would sit back and accept a situation where an overwhelming majority of the support and membership want change, but were being denied by a small minority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, an86 said:

I cannot foresee a circumstance where the wider Queen's Park support would sit back and accept a situation where an overwhelming majority of the support and membership want change, but were being denied by a small minority. 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, an86 said:

I cannot foresee a circumstance where the wider Queen's Park support would sit back and accept a situation where an overwhelming majority of the support and membership want change, but were being denied by a small minority. 

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. 

 

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...