The Big Queen's Park FC Thread

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, CTQP1867 said:

Interesting - but the Members would have to vote to change the structure of the Club ownership. Would a majority (or a 75% majority - not sure what would be needed for such an extraordinary change) actually vote for that?

Only if the club is operating with that particular limited company.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 minutes ago, CTQP1867 said:

But as a club owned by its Members you do have have checks and balances now. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're advocating removing the Membership tier and handing over ownership in its entirety to WH? Or are you advocating a Limited Company share structure - with members being given equity in the Club for their membership? (which isn't really much of a change from now unless WH is allocated a majority of the shares)?

The club's not owned by it's members. It's a limited company, run by committee. The committee, including office bearers, are voted in by members, allegedly. There's no shareholders or dividends and no salaries are paid to any member (the committee is drawn from the membership).

[an86]

1 minute ago, CTQP1867 said:

But as a club owned by its Members you do have have checks and balances now. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're advocating removing the Membership tier and handing over ownership in its entirety to WH? Or are you advocating a Limited Company share structure - with members being given equity in the Club for their membership? (which isn't really much of a change from now unless WH is allocated a majority of the shares)?

I am absolutely not saying that. I’m saying I don’t believe that the current structure of membership is fit for a modern football club in 2022. Do you think having to be seconded and having your name displayed in public (albeit, I’m not sure what the score is with that at present!) is something that is attractive to fans? It’s antiquated. What I’m after is knocking the fans voice into one unified umbrella which feels less like joining a bowling club or some sort of society.

As I’ve said, I don’t have the absolute answers on structure. What is apparent is that the current one isn’t going to fly in the long term. Something along the lines of a community club structure may allow the protections, checks and balances to stop any bad actors trying to rinse us further down the line. Haughey isn’t particularly my main concern. Post-Haughey QP is something we should already be considering when we’re looking at structure.

 

[CTQP1867]

14 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

The club's not owned by it's members. It's a limited company, run by committee. The committee, including office bearers, are voted in by members, allegedly. There's no shareholders or dividends and no salaries are paid to any member (the committee is drawn from the membership).

so who owns the shares of the Limited Company?

[CTQP1867]

So I had a look in Companies House and I see there are no actual shareholders in the Ltd Company - however why did the Members have a vote at the EGM to go professional if they don't "own" the Club? Surely there must be something in the bye-laws / articles etc that give Members decision making authority - which is essentially ownership? Otherwise the Committee/Directors could just have voted instead of holding a EGM?

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

Great to see Google honouring Andrew Watson today 

https://www.google.co.uk/

[Robert James]

On 03/10/2022 at 16:34, Northsea80 said:

Did the update contain any stadium info? 

 

Yes then, but where are we now with the development ?

[Bring Your Own Socks]

On 17/10/2022 at 19:22, CTQP1867 said:

So I had a look in Companies House and I see there are no actual shareholders in the Ltd Company - however why did the Members have a vote at the EGM to go professional if they don't "own" the Club? Surely there must be something in the bye-laws / articles etc that give Members decision making authority - which is essentially ownership? Otherwise the Committee/Directors could just have voted instead of holding a EGM?

Members are “members” of the company, different from the club. The limited company is a legal entity. As with any similar organisation, changes at Companies House to Articles of Association have to be approved by a majority of members. In this case, after about 6 months of meetings, we changed just one word. It therefore follows that to transition from the Comittee-led set-up to a more commercial-led business set-up, an awful lot of words need changed. Perhaps to the degree that the existing limited company is no longer fit-for-purpose. 

If you keep digging you’ll find a new limited company was registered at Lesser Hampden earlier this year. Only 3 directors who are also the only 3 members, and only need a quorum of 2 to make decisions. Only one of the existing directors is involved but, most notably, the CEO also is. At the moment, it’s a benign set-up relating to the club’s intended future but it would be easier to modify the articles of that company than it would be the current entity. In my humble opinion. Just an observation. Mibbees aye, Mibbees naw. One way or another, change is coming.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Bring Your Own Socks

[Ben Reilly]

33 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Members are “members” of the company, different from the club. The limited company is a legal entity. As with any similar organisation, changes at Companies House to Articles of Association have to be approved by a majority of members. In this case, after about 6 months of meetings, we changed just one word. It therefore follows that to transition from the Comittee-led set-up to a more commercial-led business set-up, an awful lot of words need changed. Perhaps to the degree that the existing limited company is no longer fit-for-purpose. 

If you keep digging you’ll find a new limited company was registered at Lesser Hampden earlier this year. Only 3 directors who are also the only 3 members, and only need a quorum of 2 to make decisions. Only one of the existing directors is involved but, most notably, the CEO also is. At the moment, it’s a benign set-up relating to the club’s intended future but it would be easier to modify the articles of that company than it would be the current entity. In my humble opinion. Just an observation. Mibbees aye, Mibbees naw. One way or another, change is coming.

If i'm digging in the same place as you then that new company is the 'Queen's Park Foundation', which is the new version of the 'QP in the community'.

That covers the womens team, Kids community teams, football fans in training and other community groups.

I dont think this has been set up as the new version of the club.

However, I do agree that some change is coming. I remember back to Dempsters first meeting back in the auditorium at Hampden, I definetly picked up some vibes that the current membership structure was not to her liking.

I'm sure I've been at a more recent meeting where the president tried to debunk that idea and also said that any change would need a 75% vote in favour.

[TheHitman]

Special away day! Come on you Queens! Surreal result given that first half. 

[Dundee-FC92]

Some result for you boys today. Looking forward to Friday.

Best parking places around Ochilview anyone?

Thank you.

[h_w7864]

1 hour ago, Dundee-FC92 said:

Some result for you boys today. Looking forward to Friday.

Best parking places around Ochilview anyone?

Thank you.

Not many places near to park only one I can think of is the one near the Ochilview Bar

[behindthelens]

 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

On 22/10/2022 at 11:37, Ben Reilly said:

If i'm digging in the same place as you then that new company is the 'Queen's Park Foundation', which is the new version of the 'QP in the community'.

I'm sure I've been at a more recent meeting where the president tried to debunk that idea and also said that any change would need a 75% vote in favour.

Was QP in the Community not just a part of QPFC Limited? Don’t recall it being a separate legal entity?

The 75% was mentioned but I don’t see that recorded in the Articles. Nevertheless, regardless of the threshold it would take a mountain of changes to align the 1903 Articles (with a few amendments) to be amended to where the club is currently operating, formally or practically. Hence my earlier comment about winding it up and starting again. It would be the end of the committee/member organisation at the stroke of a pen. 

If only we had some kind of forum, behind closed doors, where we could discuss this with the office-bearers formally and recorded.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Bring Your Own Socks

[Dooflick]

25 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Was QP in the Community not just a part of QPFC Limited? Don’t recall it being a separate legal entity?

The 75% was mentioned but I don’t see that recorded in the Articles. Nevertheless, regardless of the threshold it would take a mountain of changes to align the 1903 Articles (with a few amendments) to be amended to where the club is currently operating, formally or practically. Hence my earlier comment about winding it up and starting again. It would be the end of the committee/member organisation at the stroke of a pen. 

If only we had some kind of forum, behind closed doors, where we could discuss this with the office-bearers formally and recorded.

Could you not discuss at your next AGM, whenever that will be.

[true fan]

Liam brown announced as loan to stenhousemuir about 3 weeks ago. Not appeared not even been on the bench. No info from stenhousemuir. Any of you guys know anything? Cheers

[Bring Your Own Socks]

45 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

Could you not discuss at your next AGM, whenever that will be.

Soon as it’s announced, speculation will halt. 

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Soon as it’s announced, speculation will halt. 

Last I heard it was going to be 'before the end of September'. So the usual confusion.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

37 minutes ago, GM1867 said:

Last I heard it was going to be 'before the end of September'. So the usual confusion.

i doubt anyone's confused. As the financial period for 2021 runs Jan-Dec they should have the accounts signed off and adopted by the members, at the AGM. This should have been by May. Companies House rules say they have nine months, which is end of September, so that ship has sailed too. The settlement for the original building contract is also due to be shown in the 2021 accounts. The President, Immediate Past President and most of the remaining directors will be familiar with year-end accounts from their private business lives, and of course their service in the club.

It all ran like clockwork when the previous Treasure was in office. Unfortunately, he's had to step down for health reasons. His replacement became a Director 2 years ago and company Secretary a year ago. That person is also the only QPFC Director named on the Director's list for the new Foundation company, mentioned earlier. Maybe he's just been a bit busy.

[Hampden Diehard]

We set up a Foundation at work. It's a charity, registered with the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR). Sounds like this is what Queen's have done as it is indeed registered with OSCR.

It has to be "at arm's length", essentially not under the control of the organisation  (in this case, QPFC), which might explain why only one of the three "directors" is formally connected with Queen's.  The charitable status allows it to bid for funds that the Club can't bid for, but which can help its wider aims, such as community stuff.  The Club have been looking to do this for years.

There are opportunities to obtain funds to develop facilities and staffing if you are a charity which commercial organisations (like QPFC) can't access. We couldn't use such funds to pay the players but presumably develop community ventures.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Hampden Diehard