Queen’s Park 21/22

[Mick1867]

19 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

 

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?

Of course it is. It's just the way it was done will always stink. Blame on both sides imo.  

[Mick1867]

17 hours ago, an86 said:

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.

 

If you think it's bad now then you should have seen it back when I started watching Queen's. It was basically all ex players who couldn't relate to being a supporter at all..

I've always encouraged supporters to become members if they can, especially the younger ones with fresh ideas. When I became a member in 1999 it was because I wanted a say in how my club was run, it was that simple. I was 28 years old so it took me a while but when I started supporting QP the committee was full of dinosaurs totally out of touch with the support and a lot of the members weren't much better imo. The relationship with QPSA was awful, our fanzine was banned from being sold on club property and supporters were getting membership applications rejected because their face didn't fit. When I went to my first members meeting I felt so out of place, there was only about two folk younger than me in the room.

Thankfully the make up of the membership evolved enough over the next 20 years so we were able to get the vote through successfully.      

[Anonymous Spider]

Are we expecting Leeann at the AGM or is it the ‘she can’t attend coz she’s not a member’ patter? 
 

Also - it’s covering the accounts til Dec 2020? Is that normal or a bit mad?

[JT1867]

54 minutes ago, Anonymous Spider said:

Are we expecting Leeann at the AGM or is it the ‘she can’t attend coz she’s not a member’ patter? 
 

Also - it’s covering the accounts til Dec 2020? Is that normal or a bit mad?

You could have the AGM and then have a Q&A straight afterwards which she could attend.

In normal times we would have had the 2020 accounts by mid April and the AGM in May, even in COVID times it's difficult to understand why it took an additional eight months to produce the accounts, we're hardly an international conglomerate.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, JT1867 said:

You could have the AGM and then have a Q&A straight afterwards which she could attend.

In normal times we would have had the 2020 accounts by mid April and the AGM in May, even in COVID times it's difficult to understand why it took an additional eight months to produce the accounts, we're hardly an international conglomerate.

Nothing to do with CoVid. The official version is that the auditors were asking more questions than normal and insisted on a detailed business plans for this season. I asked the obvious question; how does that hold up the 2020 accounts? Very confused and rambling answer. Some extraordinary numbers in what’s been sent out, with no notes to explain. TBH, the detail is all becoming irrelevant. There’s really only one question needs answered now.

[The Moonster]

On 07/12/2021 at 12:57, 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. 

I suppose everyone looks at things a different way. You got £5 million quid for a ground you couldn't look after and as a result are building a fully professional team with your own purpose built ground. I'm not sure that's the look of a club that's been shafted. Others have mentioned things which don't make this a simple case of "X is worth Y". What do you feel you should've got for Hampden?

[Bring Your Own Socks]

6 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I suppose everyone looks at things a different way. You got £5 million quid for a ground you couldn't look after and as a result are building a fully professional team with your own purpose built ground. I'm not sure that's the look of a club that's been shafted. Others have mentioned things which don't make this a simple case of "X is worth Y". What do you feel you should've got for Hampden?

Members we’re told at a meeting by the then Club President that “they will do everything possible to secure the best future for Queen’s Park”. If that was a sincere comment, they could have sold the stadium to a property developer. By my estimates calculated at the time, being prudent, we would have came away with between £12-15M. This would undoubtedly have been a more arduous journey, fraught with challenges and taking some time to achieve. It might have lost us some friends in football. It might have meant that Directors would lose their debenture seats and free tickets. It would however have met the statement above.

Apologists will always find reasons for failure. I don’t see us being shafted by the SFA. It was a business transaction, dealt by negotiation. They did a good job for their business. Our team didn’t. Big v Small is a smokescreen. We had something they wanted, that should have been leverage. But successive committees turned a blind eye to the risk and put all their chips on the SFA taking on another 20 year lease. When it came to the staring contest, our guys didn’t just blink they shut their eyes and crossed their fingers.

In sweeps the mysterious benefactor, a leviathan in the business world. Watching from the wings for years. Throwing some loose change now and then just to build the profile. More sharp lawyers at hand than our first team squad. Spots the weakness, gives our Directors enough rope, rebuilding Lesser, and when they mess that up too in bowls the Big Man and relieves them of their stress. Dependency created, no way back. Future uncertain. We’re still reliant on AN Other but instead of the National football authority we are now under the hand of an entrepreneur. Those gentlemen from the Highlands who met in 1867 must be spinning in their graves.
 

 

[an86]

38 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I suppose everyone looks at things a different way. You got £5 million quid for a ground you couldn't look after and as a result are building a fully professional team with your own purpose built ground. I'm not sure that's the look of a club that's been shafted. Others have mentioned things which don't make this a simple case of "X is worth Y". What do you feel you should've got for Hampden?

We received £2.5million from the association who shafted us. Not £5million. It was the generosity of private benefactors that sweetened the pill. Nobody was expecting market value, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be slightly irked at the SFA paying under 10% of that value. 

[The Moonster]

8 minutes ago, an86 said:

We received £2.5million from the association who shafted us. Not £5million. It was the generosity of private benefactors that sweetened the pill. Nobody was expecting market value, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be slightly irked at the SFA paying under 10% of that value. 

As your fellow fan points out though, numerous things involved and indeed numerous things you could've done to avoid the situation you were in. I just think "shafted" is a strange way of looking at your club currently. You're probably the least shafted team in the league.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Moonster said:

As your fellow fan points out though, numerous things involved and indeed numerous things you could've done to avoid the situation you were in. I just think "shafted" is a strange way of looking at your club currently. You're probably the least shafted team in the league.

Queens Park are in a great position, compared with Dumbarton and many other clubs of a similar stature - that is undeniable. However, as @an86 and @Bring Your Own Socks have stated above, Queens Park have been paid a fraction of the true value of Hampden. The land alone is worth millions more than they were paid for it. 

So whilst the club's future does look bright, they have still been shafted!

[an86]

3 hours ago, The Moonster said:

As your fellow fan points out though, numerous things involved and indeed numerous things you could've done to avoid the situation you were in. I just think "shafted" is a strange way of looking at your club currently. You're probably the least shafted team in the league.

Both of these things can be true. We can both be in a good financial position and have been shafted over the value of our stadium. 

[Dooflick]

5 hours ago, an86 said:

We received £2.5million from the association who shafted us. Not £5million. It was the generosity of private benefactors that sweetened the pill. Nobody was expecting market value, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be slightly irked at the SFA paying under 10% of that value. 

10% of what figure are you saying that QP received? Of the £5m that was agreed £2.5m up front and £250k per year for the next ten years and daft as you think the committee may be, the current President works in finance and I bet that QP have a charge on Hampden until QP have all of the next £2.5m. As Hampden Die Hard stated QP had lots of debt that the SFA took over.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

8 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

10% of what figure are you saying that QP received? Of the £5m that was agreed £2.5m up front and £250k per year for the next ten years and daft as you think the committee may be, the current President works in finance and I bet that QP have a charge on Hampden until QP have all of the next £2.5m. As Hampden Die Hard stated QP had lots of debt that the SFA took over.

I can clarify one of your points for you. The SFA has 3 charges Outstanding, all to Santander. 
 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005453/charges

[Dooflick]

23 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

I can clarify one of your points for you. The SFA has 3 charges Outstanding, all to Santander. 
 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005453/charges

Well it might be wrong re QP having one. Disappointing though if I am wrong.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

On 08/12/2021 at 20:10, 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.

 

Thanks for flagging that up. Not having visitors in around the club certainly limits the information flow. 

I read that the Jimmy Johnstone Academy have Cathkin Park as their home ground. Can see where this is going….

Edited December 12, 2021 by Bring Your Own Socks

[Bring Your Own Socks]

I see the club have proudly put a post up on the East Stand development. I’ll not bother you with the science of concrete, simply this.

Modern stadia design with offsite prefabrication guaranteeing quality control, uniform compressive strengths, no air pockets, no risk of damage from frost, structurally sound including wind and snow loadings. Built on steel structure with integrated columns designed to carry and support the roof system.

The Queen’s Park method. Perhaps a nostalgic throwback to 1903.

In case anyone’s wondering, the modern version is cheaper and quicker to build. 

[LeodhasXD]

To be fair that's just a flex. Do you know what the cost of lumber is these days?

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

In-situ concrete will almost always be cheaper than pre-cast for the reasons listed above. But for something fairly straightforward like a small football stand it really doesn't make much difference tbh. Pouring in spring/ summer/ autumn will obviously be better than at this time of year given the cold weather which usually causes some sort of delay to programme but that can't really be controlled I suppose

Given the existing banking already in place steel columns would also be an unnecessary (and large) expense  

[Hampden Diehard]

On 09/12/2021 at 23:05, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Nothing to do with CoVid. The official version is that the auditors were asking more questions than normal and insisted on a detailed business plans for this season. I asked the obvious question; how does that hold up the 2020 accounts? Very confused and rambling answer. Some extraordinary numbers in what’s been sent out, with no notes to explain. TBH, the detail is all becoming irrelevant. There’s really only one question needs answered now.

The accounts will have to make comment to reflect the Club's situation when the auditors sign them off rather than just at the end of the financial year.  If there was a major legal case (as was, or is, the case) then it could well delay the accounts as this may affect the ongoing viability of the Club.  I should add that I have no more idea than you about what the reason for the delay was.  However, it may be that any questions over the Club's financial sustainability have now been answered to the auditors' satisfaction and there's no need to mention them in the report.  Again, I'm only surmising.

[Hampden Diehard]

On 08/12/2021 at 21:22, 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.

We have a pretty equal mix of supporters and ex-players and they all come up for election after a pre-determined period.  It's about as democratic as any football club gets.  I know the Committee gets stick, but let me assure you that the job of the President has been sapping in recent years and almost impossible to do if you have a full time job; indeed, it was in danger of becoming a full time job itself.  That was one of the reasons that I couldn't continue on the Committee.  And also one of the reasons that we have Leeann Dempster on board.

As Mick1867 has said, it's vital that supporters do become involved and become members.  The composition of the membership is totally different from when I was a lad.  Back then, it was essentially all ex-players with very few supporters but now that has reversed significantly, with the vast majority being supporters.  Hopefully once we get ourselves established back at Lesser and the QP world becomes more normal, communication will be better and non-members will feel that they can and should become members.  Members of QP probably have more influence on their football club than the vast, vast majority of clubs in Scotland.