Jump to content

Queen’s Park 21/22


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

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.

Not saying it’s perfect, but we could be in a much, much worse nick without him. Bailed out the poor management of the initial stadium project and stuck a substantial amount onto the pittance offered by the SFA. The club is also competing a level above our normal environment.

Hospitality also had 100+ in at the weekend, so there’s a clear positive on that front. In the region of six grand brought in on one Saturday is great going. Doing well commercially with the number of sponsors/partners as well. 

There are legitimate questions and criticisms to be aimed at the club for sure, but I’m more confident that we have people with a history of running successful professional operations and administrative competence at the helm. Whilst I’m not at all happy with the levels of communication, it’d be fair to say they inherited a bungled operation at the worst possible time.

There’s the obvious questions around the structure of the club. We’re essentially in limbo. The committee structure, as it was, is all but obsolete. I would hope to see solid proposals or the beginnings of discussions on that side of things at the AGM.

Some things are improving, some things still need substantial improvement and more transparency/clarity. I’m still on the cautiously optimistic camp, but the club have to talk to/involve punters more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mick1867 said:

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

Well done to all those contributingin this thread, with comments and info on the new plans. They seem to be a big improvemnet on the original 2 stand deal.

But reading the above post made me think that as a GIRUY to the SFA and their pathetic origgial offer, we could call the new Lesser.

................................."The One Pound Stadium"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, QP's in my DNA said:

Well done to all those contributingin this thread, with comments and info on the new plans. They seem to be a big improvemnet on the original 2 stand deal.

But reading the above post made me think that as a GIRUY to the SFA and their pathetic origgial offer, we could call the new Lesser.

................................."The One Pound Stadium"

I don’t think the SFA give a f**k what we name the stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

wind up the standalone company running the debenture scheme.

Because you would have found yourself involved in a very long and complex legal case that would probably take 7 figures in legal fees if you were to fight it.

Your are basically saying you should have stolen the Debenture money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

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? 

I was told by an ex committee guy that all grants etc were made on the basis that, there would be football played at the stadium over a 40 year period, and if the SFA had moved to Murrayfield, while QP could have played on, ther, was no way QP would have been able to maintain the stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dooflick said:

I was told by an ex committee guy that all grants etc were made on the basis that, there would be football played at the stadium over a 40 year period, and if the SFA had moved to Murrayfield, while QP could have played on, ther, was no way QP would have been able to maintain the stadium. 

I believe that some, but not all, were 40 years. Essentially, if we had called the SFA's bluff, the risk of us going into financial meltdown were quite high. We were shafted, no argument there at all, but we just had to get the best deal we could. Paying back the debentures was an issue as was what might be under the ground in Hampden itself if we ended up selling it. We would have to pay for any decontamination of chemical waste being found, as happened during the building work in Lesser a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

I believe that some, but not all, were 40 years. Essentially, if we had called the SFA's bluff, the risk of us going into financial meltdown were quite high. We were shafted, no argument there at all, but we just had to get the best deal we could. Paying back the debentures was an issue as was what might be under the ground in Hampden itself if we ended up selling it. We would have to pay for any decontamination of chemical waste being found, as happened during the building work in Lesser a few years ago.

 

Aye, it was apparent to most folk that you were shafted. There's no doubt the stadium's worth more than you were paid for it. However, regardless of the debentures, how is an amateur club playing in a 50,000 seat stadium viable? Concerts? They had you over a barrel and you seem to have got the best deal possible.

It's a new chapter for Queen's Park. Surely having a professional side vying for second-tier football and playing in a stadium that is full, albeit much smaller, is more attractive than the past few decades' experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/12/2021 at 15:46, an86 said:

Not saying it’s perfect, but we could be in a much, much worse nick without him. Bailed out the poor management of the initial stadium project and stuck a substantial amount onto the pittance offered by the SFA. The club is also competing a level above our normal environment.

Hospitality also had 100+ in at the weekend, so there’s a clear positive on that front. In the region of six grand brought in on one Saturday is great going. Doing well commercially with the number of sponsors/partners as well. 

There are legitimate questions and criticisms to be aimed at the club for sure, but I’m more confident that we have people with a history of running successful professional operations and administrative competence at the helm. Whilst I’m not at all happy with the levels of communication, it’d be fair to say they inherited a bungled operation at the worst possible time.

There’s the obvious questions around the structure of the club. We’re essentially in limbo. The committee structure, as it was, is all but obsolete. I would hope to see solid proposals or the beginnings of discussions on that side of things at the AGM.

Some things are improving, some things still need substantial improvement and more transparency/clarity. I’m still on the cautiously optimistic camp, but the club have to talk to/involve punters more.

The structure at the club is it's Haughey's money and he's calling the shots. Doubt he'll have any interest in communicating or answering to the average punter and the people in official roles aren't going to go off message at all to upset him.

He's given his mate Jim Simmonette an unoffical role running the youth academy despite him being unqualified to do so and there already being Gardner Spiers and a host of qualified coaches who were running the academy beforehand.

The club is pretty much a plaything now. I don't think it will end well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Spider said:

The structure at the club is it's Haughey's money and he's calling the shots. Doubt he'll have any interest in communicating or answering to the average punter and the people in official roles aren't going to go off message at all to upset him.

He's given his mate Jim Simmonette an unoffical role running the youth academy despite him being unqualified to do so and there already being Gardner Spiers and a host of qualified coaches who were running the academy beforehand.

The club is pretty much a plaything now. I don't think it will end well.

 

Let’s be honest, we’re kidding ourselves if we’re saying the average punter has ever truly had a say in proceedings in terms of the general running of the football club. Once the committee is elected, they call the shots. Most punters don’t even have a say in that. 

Membership has always felt a bit two tier and the “you’ve got to know someone to sign up” thing is pretty off putting. The only reason I did so was to vote to turn professional. Would have had zero interest otherwise, because it’s all a bit bowling clubby.

There should continue be supporter representation within whatever structure we proceed with, but we’ve absolutely got to modernise and make it more attractive to supporters to engage with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, an86 said:

Let’s be honest, we’re kidding ourselves if we’re saying the average punter has ever truly had a say in proceedings in terms of the general running of the football club. Once the committee is elected, they call the shots. Most punters don’t even have a say in that. 

Membership has always felt a bit two tier and the “you’ve got to know someone to sign up” thing is pretty off putting. The only reason I did so was to vote to turn professional. Would have had zero interest otherwise, because it’s all a bit bowling clubby.

There should continue be supporter representation within whatever structure we proceed with, but we’ve absolutely got to modernise and make it more attractive to supporters to engage with.

Could we not have a representative from the Supporters Association feed through onto Committee? I assume we still have a supporters association, haven't heard of any meetings but if it was still going then it seems like a good way forward 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, an86 said:

Let’s be honest, we’re kidding ourselves if we’re saying the average punter has ever truly had a say in proceedings in terms of the general running of the football club. Once the committee is elected, they call the shots. Most punters don’t even have a say in that. 

Membership has always felt a bit two tier and the “you’ve got to know someone to sign up” thing is pretty off putting. The only reason I did so was to vote to turn professional. Would have had zero interest otherwise, because it’s all a bit bowling clubby.

There should continue be supporter representation within whatever structure we proceed with, but we’ve absolutely got to modernise and make it more attractive to supporters to engage with.

I emailed the club about becoming a member back in July, after being unable to find any information about it on the club website. More than five months later I have yet to receive a reply. Doesn't exactly give the impression they're keen for new members to join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, an86 said:

 

There should continue be supporter representation within whatever structure we proceed with, but we’ve absolutely got to modernise and make it more attractive to supporters to engage with.

Given that communication with supporters/members has only been done when the club had to do it (threat of an EGM, company law), it doesn't suggest that supporter/member engagement is high on their list of priorities.

The club talk about building the fanbase but sticking two fingers up at the supporters they already have is a strange way to go about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JT1867 said:

Given that communication with supporters/members has only been done when the club had to do it (threat of an EGM, company law), it doesn't suggest that supporter/member engagement is high on their list of priorities.

The club talk about building the fanbase but sticking two fingers up at the supporters they already have is a strange way to go about it.

What's becoming increasingly clear is that Dempster sees Queen's Park as a clean slate, with no real fanbase other than a handful of expendable weirdos and eccentrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Skeletar Spider said:

What's becoming increasingly clear is that Dempster sees Queen's Park as a clean slate, with no real fanbase other than a handful of expendable weirdos and eccentrics.

🤣 Sorry, that made me laugh, talking about fellow fans like that! I have only ever met one QP supporter and he was a pretty normal guy, to be fair. 

As a club you will need to attract new fans, and you will if successful on the pitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JT1867 said:

Given that communication with supporters/members has only been done when the club had to do it (threat of an EGM, company law), it doesn't suggest that supporter/member engagement is high on their list of priorities.

The club talk about building the fanbase but sticking two fingers up at the supporters they already have is a strange way to go about it.

Aside from the stadium, most of the issues people have are pretty easily fixable. The new faces and the old are going to have to adapt to each other. The Queen’s Park support isn’t like the Motherwell or Hibs support, nor is Queen’s Park going to be the same “find out stuff with a nod and a wink in the social club for gossip” club that it has been. The only way we can really avoid a divide is by having clear communication and a bridge between the club and fans.

I guarantee that any of the new regime at the club would be met in a friendly manner by the fans if they came in to sit among us, for example. Might give a better feel of what makes the club tick. The answer to that is alcohol fuelled anger at officials, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Skeletar Spider said:

I emailed the club about becoming a member back in July, after being unable to find any information about it on the club website. More than five months later I have yet to receive a reply. Doesn't exactly give the impression they're keen for new members to join.

I am suprised to hear that. I gave up my membership because of certain things had happened. Before WH I would point out, and in that time 2 members of the supporters club have been elected onto the committee, Greame Shields and Gregor Hall, get in touch with them about being a member, or indeed Keith McAllister and they will I am sure point you in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

I am suprised to hear that. I gave up my membership because of certain things had happened. Before WH I would point out, and in that time 2 members of the supporters club have been elected onto the committee, Greame Shields and Gregor Hall, get in touch with them about being a member, or indeed Keith McAllister and they will I am sure point you in the right direction.

I think the point is that the club should be encouraging folk to become members not making it akin to some sort of secret society. 

 

As others have pointed out it will probably makes hee-haw difference in the future as its clear that the club does what it wants & gives little heed to fans, season ticket holders or members. 

I don't much care as long as we get some transparency about a future we can all get on board with.

in other news...

 

...hopefully, Laurie will find it hard to drop our rep in the SPFL team of the week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Reclusespider said:

Could we not have a representative from the Supporters Association feed through onto Committee? I assume we still have a supporters association, haven't heard of any meetings but if it was still going then it seems like a good way forward 

We're very much "still going". Who do you think runs the supporters' buses to away games, the social events, the merchandise shop etc? 

Good idea though about having guaranteed permanent representation but sometimes (unfortunately) it can become a conflict of interests. Our current QPSA secretary (for the last million years) was on the club committee for a wee while before deciding to step down. Our previous bus convener is currently on the club committee. A few more of them were just normal punters originally. Sadly over the years a few have quickly forgotten where they came from and who supported them to get elected in the first place.

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...