Queen’s Park 21/22

[williebraveheart]

Those drawings are so disappointing. Being punted round to the east means that on any sunny day we will have difficulty seeing the game. I am no planning or design expert but I guess whoever thought this up has as much knowledge as me. If you are not a director you are screwed.

[Mediocre Pundit]

From the outside looking in, Queens Park have a decent site, plenty of money, and not too challenging timelines - it should be quite simple to build a nice and appropriately sized / sectioned stadium. It’s incredible that you seem to be fucking this up so badly.

[williebraveheart]

1 hour ago, Mediocre Pundit said:

From the outside looking in, Queens Park have a decent site, plenty of money, and not too challenging timelines - it should be quite simple to build a nice and appropriately sized / sectioned stadium. It’s incredible that you seem to be fucking this up so badly.

It is.

[Mick1867]

11 hours ago, RosspCfc said:

You'll not be welcome at Super duper Lesser if you criticise Haughey or want to do things like retain the world's oldest football related building

Well BYOS is obviously a critic of Haughey but he's also someone who doesn't really care about the old dressing rooms getting knocked down. Just like the majority of QP fans I spoke to on Saturday. 

[Mick1867]

14 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

That’s massively disappointing. Members have been shunned enough and this is basically a f**k-off. My worst fears about Haughey’s influence are coming true.

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this at the AGM in a couple of weeks. At least Dempster won't be there this time to stonewall so let's see if the committee aren't as evasive with our questions.

TBH, I'm more than happy for them to be as far away as possible from the rest of us at games. And obviously the feeling is mutual. 

[Mick1867]

1 hour ago, williebraveheart said:

 Being punted round to the east means that on any sunny day we will have difficulty seeing the game. 

Thankfully we don't have many of those in Scotland.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

21 minutes ago, Mick1867 said:

Thankfully we don't have many of those in Scotland.

But we do get wind and rain driving in from the west. Pishing wet I think is the metrological term.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

25 minutes ago, Mick1867 said:

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this at the AGM in a couple of weeks. At least Dempster won't be there this time to stonewall so let's see if the committee aren't as evasive with our questions.

TBH, I'm more than happy for them to be as far away as possible from the rest of us at games. And obviously the feeling is mutual. 

It does beg the question though; what's the point of being a member? I wouldn't be at all surprised if this AGM is the last. A select band of well-kept compliant directors (puppets) is the future and to achieve that it needs a newco. Maybe we'll be a mini-me Rangers as well. FFS!

[JT1867]

35 minutes ago, Mick1867 said:

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this at the AGM in a couple of weeks. At least Dempster won't be there this time to stonewall so let's see if the committee aren't as evasive with our questions.

Not sure how much the committee will be able to tell us as they are not making any decisions.

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

14 hours ago, Ben Reilly said:

Hmmm, I'm not really impressed either. It looks like I was right with my guesses.....sort of.

There will be a new lounge in place of the farmhouse, and they will retain the recently extended stepped concrete base. Unfortunately the new stand will just be built on top of the base with a load of cladding to attempt (badly) to cover it up. If it looks like it does on the drawing it will be very obvious that this was added as an afterthought.

There does seem to still be an area if the original stand to the north of directors 'pod' so I presume that portion will eventually have seats added to it as per the original draft to increase capacity.

I can see now why they didn't include any design drawings of this on the website.

Given the way the directors pod has been raised up any 'normal' seating on the west side won't have a view of one of the goals. Putting up that pod has essentially eliminated that whole side of the ground for a general capacity

2 hours ago, williebraveheart said:

Those drawings are so disappointing. Being punted round to the east means that on any sunny day we will have difficulty seeing the game. I am no planning or design expert but I guess whoever thought this up has as much knowledge as me. If you are not a director you are screwed.

Indeed. The most simple and best solution would be to retain and convert/ extend the farmhouse to create the hospitality suite and simply have debenture seating accessed from it at the back and centre of the west stand as per every other main stand in the country. Makes sense especially considering all the concrete formwork for the west stand has already been completed

That way you've got two home stands and away fans behind the goal which could overspill to the east for larger away supports. Future addition of a stand behind the other goal the same height as the west would give you a capacity of something like

West 1,400

East 1,000

North 700

South 500

Total: 3,600

The current proposals wipe off a fair chunk of that 

 

[Mick1867]

34 minutes ago, JT1867 said:

Not sure how much the committee will be able to tell us as they are not making any decisions.

Given some of the awful decisions they've made in the past then maybe that's not such a bad thing 

I get you. I look forward to having all our "suspicions" confirmed on the 20th. Whether they care to admit it or not.

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Mick1867

[williebraveheart]

28 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

It does beg the question though; what's the point of being a member? I wouldn't be at all surprised if this AGM is the last. A select band of well-kept compliant directors (puppets) is the future and to achieve that it needs a newco. Maybe we'll be a mini-me Rangers as well. FFS!

I would agree. Whilst I am not a member I believe that their days are numbered. I think I would feel pretty aggrieved although I did make comment regarding this back in the days when the"will we won't we" debate was raging. I am still thankful Sir Wullie has stepped in. Without him we would be in deep doo doo or heading for the Lowland League or worse.

[an86]

21 hours ago, The Moonster said:

Forgive me for my ignorance, but how and when were you shafted here? 

Do you honestly believe Hampden and the surrounding land was only worth £2.5million? Gun to the head “take it or sink.” Our old home now lies empty every second Saturday as we have to trudge across the city as well.

They bought a mansion for the price of a garden shed because they knew the alternative was our club sinking. They were happy for that to happen and nobody else gave a shit. Just because things have worked out well in the end with Haughey doesn’t change a thing on that front. 

[Dooflick]

1 hour ago, an86 said:

Do you honestly believe Hampden and the surrounding land was only worth £2.5million? Gun to the head “take it or sink.” Our old home now lies empty every second Saturday as we have to trudge across the city as well.

They bought a mansion for the price of a garden shed because they knew the alternative was our club sinking. They were happy for that to happen and nobody else gave a shit. Just because things have worked out well in the end with Haughey doesn’t change a thing on that front. 

Thought it was £5million? £2.5m downpayment and the rest over 10 years at "250k per year, plus the SFA taking on the debt that QP would have had regarding the debenture scheme, plus any grants that QP had received which are there over a 40 year term. That's what I understood the deal was and we would not have got that, without WH offering to donate £2.5m to the SFA to allow them to do a deal with QP as they were only offering £2m and were seriously going to move to Murrayfield without WH's money.

[Mick1867]

16 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

Thought it was £5million? £2.5m downpayment and the rest over 10 years at "250k per year, plus the SFA taking on the debt that QP would have had regarding the debenture scheme, plus any grants that QP had received which are there over a 40 year term. That's what I understood the deal was and we would not have got that, without WH offering to donate £2.5m to the SFA to allow them to do a deal with QP as they were only offering £2m and were seriously going to move to Murrayfield without WH's money.

That's what he was getting at. The SFA only came up with half the money. As you said, Haughey (and Tom Hunter) gave them the rest to bring it up to £5 million . 

Let's also not forget that they originally only offered us a pound for the whole place

Edited December 7, 2021 by Mick1867

[an86]

1 minute ago, Dooflick said:

Thought it was £5million? £2.5m downpayment and the rest over 10 years at "250k per year, plus the SFA taking on the debt that QP would have had regarding the debenture scheme, plus any grants that QP had received which are there over a 40 year term. That's what I understood the deal was and we would not have got that, without WH offering to donate £2.5m to the SFA to allow them to do a deal with QP as they were only offering £2m and were seriously going to move to Murrayfield without WH's money.

Haughey and Hunter stumped up £1.25million each and the SFA paid £2.5million, was my understanding of it. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, an86 said:

Just because things have worked out well in the end with Haughey doesn’t change a thing on that front. 

Swapping 800 seats for members and fans for 40 seats for directors and chums isn’t my idea of working well. It’s a spectacular reward for a group of individuals who have repeatedly made poor decisions and choices. Maybe the new stand should be called The Carillion.

[Mick1867]

12 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

 It’s a spectacular reward for a group of individuals who have repeatedly made poor decisions and choices. 

Yes, they shouldn't get off the hook when it comes to Hampden. It was their inaction and foolish trust in the SFA that have brought us here as well. They should have tried to re-negotiate the lease deal before it was up, especially when the SFA asked us to extend it for the Euros. Zero lessons seemed to have been learned from season 99/2000/  

Edited December 7, 2021 by Mick1867

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 minutes ago, Mick1867 said:

Yes, they shouldn't get off the hook when it comes to Hampden. It was their inaction and foolish trust in the SFA that have brought us here as well. The lease should have re-negotiated well before it was up, especially when the SFA asked us to extend it for the Euros. Zero lessons seemed to have been learned from season 99/2000  

Not sure if it was foolishness. Incompetence more likely. When you’ve spent your career in an institution like the NHS and work in a world where underlings still have to address you as Mister, that’s not the profile of someone negotiating over millions of pounds. Or when a President stands up and says lI’ll do everything possible to ensure Queen’s Park’s future” why didn’t they sell the property, wind up the standalone company running the debenture scheme. As for the Lottery grant, this was paid by the Millennium Commission which was wound up in 2006. So how did we owe any money on that? And why had we a debt for a grant anyway? 

[CambieBud]

Afternoon Queens fans. What has happened to Jai Quitongo? Is he still with you?