Queen’s Park 21/22

[an86]

£300 to sponsor a player. Might as just fire a “no working class contributions required” label on it. What average worker, student or anyone else on a low/average income has three hundred quid burning a hole in their pocket?

[an86]

11 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Finally, to my fellow supporters who called an EGM I commend your action but now understand that it’s been ignored, or whittled away, by the club. The EGM should have been the place for a Vote of Confidence but now that’s been deflected as well. If supporters of the club are content to allow the Directors, who members vote in, to continue to show disregard for members by ignoring an EGM request as per the Articles of Association then you have no right to criticise them for anything in the future. You reap what you sow. 

There’s been communication between the club and those who signed the letter. The aim was to bring the club to the table to answer questions and that’s what’s happening. 
 

Any member can start the ball rolling to trigger an EGM. There’s nothing stopping anyone doing that. To have a pop at those who are trying to get answers is missing the target imo. It’s likely that we’d still be getting no answers if people hadn’t made a move in the direction of an EGM.

For what it’s worth, I’d say those who do nothing are the ones with less of a right to criticise than those who do.

[Mick1867]

28 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Finally, to my fellow supporters who called an EGM I commend your action but now understand that it’s been ignored, or whittled away, by the club. The EGM should have been the place for a Vote of Confidence but now that’s been deflected as well. If supporters of the club are content to allow the Directors, who members vote in, to continue to show disregard for members by ignoring an EGM request as per the Articles of Association then you have no right to criticise them for anything in the future. You reap what you sow. 

It wasn't ignored at all. The club president contacted us asking if we could withdraw the request for an official EGM and hold a general meeting instead so that Leanne Dempster could attend. She isn't a member and apparently only members can attend an EGM (we assumed that he wasn't lying) We were assured that all the items that we asked to be covered would still be on the agenda (and they are) His proposal was put to the signatories and the majority agreed. A minority didn't and I fully respect their reasons for doing so. I believe the president also contacted one or two of them to discuss their concerns.

The initial aim was to get the committee and club officials into a room (or zoom chat) so we could attempt to get answers from them as we all know that comms has been abysmal. If we don't get the satisfactory answers next week then don't worry, we will be taking the appropriate action and sticking to it. By willing to compromise we've acted in good faith and shown that we don't want to to go to war with them. It's now up to the committee to respect the favour we've granted.

Incidentally, I didn't realise this at the time, but an EGM apparently only allows the issues we listed in the letter to be discussed. This more general meeting gives far more scope for lots of items to be discussed. So hopefully every member with concerns will be there to give them a grilling .  

[QP Steamer]

1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

There’s a new planning application submitted and currently under consideration. It asks for 3 temporary buildings, dressing rooms for both teams and match officials, which will be sited on the running track in front of the pavilion. In the architect’s submission it notes that from the original planning consent QPFC plan to go ahead with the east stand and the match control room (essential for the SPFL approval) but no indication when or with whom. Notably, the architect on this submission is not the same as the previous.

It also notes that QP have entered into a legal contract with PTFC for this season and that QPFC hope to have all works complete for season 22-23, although the language on that was a bit vague. Dempster’s announcement on Premier Sports was disingenuous; there’s no chance of playing at Lesser this season.

There’s yet another planning application being raised, but not yet submitted, for what is now referred to as the Director’s Stand. In the original application, the design drawings indicate a cantilevered seating arrangement suspended from the pavilion, where the upper gantry is currently situated and accessed via the Legends Lounge. It was referred to as an extension to the pavilion then. There’s no detail as yet as to what the new Director’s Stand is.

The original design was for 44 seats plus two disabled. Clearly not enough to accommodate all members as the previous two lounges at Hampden did. The President in his e mail/letter a month ago announcing sale of members tickets slipped in that there would be no more “free food” and that the Millennium package was also no longer available. Associate members have been scrapped. Only Directors and Life Members (who don’t pay a subscription) are left with any sort of privilege. This was carefully worded and implied that all this change was down to moving to Firhill. In fact, it’s conveniently deflected a situation that looks like widening the current trust gap between The Directors and everyone else.

Finally, to my fellow supporters who called an EGM I commend your action but now understand that it’s been ignored, or whittled away, by the club. The EGM should have been the place for a Vote of Confidence but now that’s been deflected as well. If supporters of the club are content to allow the Directors, who members vote in, to continue to show disregard for members by ignoring an EGM request as per the Articles of Association then you have no right to criticise them for anything in the future. You reap what you sow. 

 

The members who called for an EGM have achieved exactly what they set out to, to engage with the club and have issues raised and answered. At no point was the call for an EGM “ignored”, after discussions it was agreed to move forward with a members meeting to address the issues. I suggest if you’re not happy maybe you should seek members with a similar point of view and call for your own EGM rather than attack other members who managed to achieve something. If members are still unhappy another EGM can simply be called for again.
 

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were misinformed about the above.

[an86]

17 minutes ago, QP Steamer said:

 

 

The members who called for an EGM have achieved exactly what they set out to, to engage with the club and have issues raised and answered. At no point was the call for an EGM “ignored”, after discussions it was agreed to move forward with a members meeting to address the issues. I suggest if you’re not happy maybe you should seek members with a similar point of view and call for your own EGM rather than attack other members who managed to achieve something. If members are still unhappy another EGM can simply be called for again.
 

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were misinformed about the above.

Everything has to have an aim. We wanted answers. As you say, we’ll hopefully get them. I’ve no real interest in the membership being at loggerheads with the club. The preference would be for clarity, explanations and everyone leaving the meeting singing broadly from the same hymn sheet. A club of our size can only really work with everyone pulling in the same direction.

As for votes of no confidence. What is the aim? What is the end game? Mass resignations? Then what? That’s something that should never be ruled out if we don’t get answers, but we’d still need to know what we were aiming for as a consequence.

Ultimately, the structure of the club has to change. The fans must have a voice, but a full-time professional club can’t retain an amateur structure behind the scenes. It’s not sustainable, even in the relatively short term.

[Spider Rico]

The new planning application certainly makes for interesting reading. I will reserve judgement until after the meeting next week but the apparent relabelling of the West Stand as a “Directors” stand is certainly concerning given it was supposed to have a capacity of almost 1000

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, Spider Rico said:

The new planning application certainly makes for interesting reading. I will reserve judgement until after the meeting next week but the apparent relabelling of the West Stand as a “Directors” stand is certainly concerning given it was supposed to have a capacity of almost 1000

I don’t know how you concluded that from my post. The additional seats are where the viewing platform is that runs along the pavilion. The West stand is in front of the barn and farmhouse. Two separate areas.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 hours ago, Mick1867 said:

It wasn't ignored at all. The club president contacted us asking if we could withdraw the request for an official EGM and hold a general meeting instead so that Leanne Dempster could attend. She isn't a member and apparently only members can attend an EGM (we assumed that he wasn't lying) We were assured that all the items that we asked to be covered would still be on the agenda (and they are) His proposal was put to the signatories and the majority agreed. A minority didn't and I fully respect their reasons for doing so. I believe the president also contacted one or two of them to discuss their concerns.

The initial aim was to get the committee and club officials into a room (or zoom chat) so we could attempt to get answers from them as we all know that comms has been abysmal. If we don't get the satisfactory answers next week then don't worry, we will be taking the appropriate action and sticking to it. By willing to compromise we've acted in good faith and shown that we don't want to to go to war with them. It's now up to the committee to respect the favour we've granted.

Incidentally, I didn't realise this at the time, but an EGM apparently only allows the issues we listed in the letter to be discussed. This more general meeting gives far more scope for lots of items to be discussed. So hopefully every member with concerns will be there to give them a grilling .  

Unfortunately as it’s now not a formal meeting, members other than those who sent the EGM notice have no sight of what the questions are. We’re seeking transparency from the club. Evidently members don’t have transparency on what has been submitted.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 hours ago, QP Steamer said:

 

 

The members who called for an EGM have achieved exactly what they set out to, to engage with the club and have issues raised and answered. At no point was the call for an EGM “ignored”, after discussions it was agreed to move forward with a members meeting to address the issues. I suggest if you’re not happy maybe you should seek members with a similar point of view and call for your own EGM rather than attack other members who managed to achieve something. If members are still unhappy another EGM can simply be called for again.
 

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were misinformed about the above.

It seems I was. Thanks.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

4 hours ago, an86 said:

There’s been communication between the club and those who signed the letter. The aim was to bring the club to the table to answer questions and that’s what’s happening. 
 

Any member can start the ball rolling to trigger an EGM. There’s nothing stopping anyone doing that. To have a pop at those who are trying to get answers is missing the target imo. It’s likely that we’d still be getting no answers if people hadn’t made a move in the direction of an EGM.

For what it’s worth, I’d say those who do nothing are the ones with less of a right to criticise than those who do.

Any member can’t trigger an EGM. It takes 5% as you know, and it was me that flagged that up. An EGM should be called on behalf of all members. So what you’re saying is that your wee group didn’t need anyone else’s opinion, created your own questions and are exclusively dealing with the President. 
 

As for your sarcasm in the last comment, maybe others are doing something and can see where it’s all headed. Best of luck with your meeting.

[NathanQP]

5 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Best of luck with your meeting.

It's not their meeting, the invite was put out to all members to attend.

[an86]

Just now, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Any member can’t trigger an EGM. It takes 5% as you know, and it was me that flagged that up. An EGM should be called on behalf of all members. So what you’re saying is that your wee group didn’t need anyone else’s opinion, created your own questions and are exclusively dealing with the President. 
 

As for your sarcasm in the last comment, maybe others are doing something and can see where it’s all headed. Best of luck with your meeting.

Yes, that’s what I said. Any member can start the ball rolling to trigger an EGM. I didn’t say that a single member could do it alone. 
 

5% of members, which I wouldn’t say constitutes “my wee group”, agreed on a course of action with the aim of getting the club to communicate with the membership. That’s been achieved.

Every single member has the opportunity to listen to what the club has to say and put forward their questions. If satisfactory answers are not received, then obviously nothing is off the table. I don’t think any of that is unreasonable.

[Mick1867]

37 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Any member can’t trigger an EGM. It takes 5% as you know, and it was me that flagged that up. An EGM should be called on behalf of all members. So what you’re saying is that your wee group didn’t need anyone else’s opinion, created your own questions and are exclusively dealing with the President. 
 

Oh ffs, this isn't what happened at all.

Any member can trigger an EGM by trying to get the 5% required to back him or her and this is what happened here. The letter was drafted and sent before the season started so we didn't have time to approach more members personally and get more signatories on the letter. We would have but wanted something set up ASAP. 

All members got the invite to the meeting and I can assure you that the agenda items that we initially proposed for the EGM are all listed on that letter. We thought at the time this was a fair representation of people's major concerns going by what we read on here and across social media. If it isn't then feel free to raise others on the night (the fact it's not an EGM now means you can) 

The President chose to personally contact some of the signatories, we never asked him to or to deal exclusively with anyone. 

I believe we've secured a decent outcome here for everyone so not sure why you're throwing your toys out the pram.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by Mick1867

[Spider Rico]

46 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

I don’t know how you concluded that from my post. The additional seats are where the viewing platform is that runs along the pavilion. The West stand is in front of the barn and farmhouse. Two separate areas.

It was based on a quick read of the documents on my phone so I may well have misinterpreted the “Directors Stand” part.

It does though say in reference to the West Stand that the previously granted planning application for works to this area has stopped and is under review (presumably due to the change in plan for the changing rooms). The covering letter from the architects does not mention the West Stand in terms of what is being “delivered”.

So my concern was that the intention was to replace the West stand with some small directors stand, reducing the capacity even further. 

 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

34 minutes ago, NathanQP said:

It's not their meeting, the invite was put out to all members to attend.

I know that, but the questions that were asked weren’t shared with the invite.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 minutes ago, Spider Rico said:

It was based on a quick read of the documents on my phone so I may well have misinterpreted the “Directors Stand” part.

It does though say in reference to the West Stand that the previously granted planning application for works to this area has stopped and is under review (presumably due to the change in plan for the changing rooms). The covering letter from the architects does not mention the West Stand in terms of what is being “delivered”.

So my concern was that the intention was to replace the West stand with some small directors stand, reducing the capacity even further. 

 

Possibly, or at least the section nearer the pavilion. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

19 minutes ago, an86 said:

Yes, that’s what I said. Any member can start the ball rolling to trigger an EGM. I didn’t say that a single member could do it alone. 
 

5% of members, which I wouldn’t say constitutes “my wee group”, agreed on a course of action with the aim of getting the club to communicate with the membership. That’s been achieved.

Every single member has the opportunity to listen to what the club has to say and put forward their questions. If satisfactory answers are not received, then obviously nothing is off the table. I don’t think any of that is unreasonable.

Thanks for the clarity.

[Dooflick]

1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Unfortunately as it’s now not a formal meeting, members other than those who sent the EGM notice have no sight of what the questions are. We’re seeking transparency from the club. Evidently members don’t have transparency on what has been submitted.

As an ex-member I hope that all members who can attend do so and if there is something that is not on the agenda that they feel strong about, as Mick says, they can raise at after all the points on the agenda have been discussed. Go get them guys.

[Arachnophile]

6 hours ago, an86 said:

£300 to sponsor a player. Might as just fire a “no working class contributions required” label on it. What average worker, student or anyone else on a low/average income has three hundred quid burning a hole in their pocket?

I guess the sponsor a player thing has always been about raising money and if the club can successfully shift 30 or 40 sweaty shirts at £300 a pop, then good on them.

It would seem foolish not to offer something a little more modestly priced to fans who can't /won't fork out £300 for a sweaty shirt. 

I would have thought one these "get your name on a brick" schemes would be a good idea. Especially as we are (probably) actually building something.

And surely we need a sponsor for these captain's armbands, Doyle keeps giving away.

[The Moonster]

300 sheets to sponsor a shirt

The QP board absolutely fleecing the support this season it would seem.