The Big Queen's Park FC Thread

[Skyline Drifter]

12 minutes ago, QPSpider1867 said:

I think the rule is very harsh for a rescheduled game. If it was a replay then I can understand. 

I suppose there is a risk that teams would deliberately postpone games until players are signed, but it was our opponents pitch that couldn't fulfil the fixture. It is harsh in my opinion.  

I dont particularly think its harsh to be honest but thats irrelevant. If clubs want to propose a rule change they can. The fact is it is a rule and the player was ineligible. As such the default punishment is expulsion.

[an86]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I dont particularly think its harsh to be honest but thats irrelevant. If clubs want to propose a rule change they can. The fact is it is a rule and the player was ineligible. As such the default punishment is expulsion.

Yep. The rules are there to protect the integrity of the game. It’s each club’s job to know the rule book inside out. Nobody to blame but ourselves.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

12 hours ago, SUPERSOUTH said:

Think Coyle should know the rules... Most people know players must be signed before original date of game.. If he didn't ask someone.... 

it’s not Coyle’s job, not at our club anyway. Your talking about a guy who famously served Geoff Brown a cup of Bisto, thinking it was coffee.

I’m not excusing anyone here but the common question would be “is he cup-tied?”. The offence committed (allegedly, we still don’t have facts) related to dates and much less common. I think what it highlights, as any QP fan will tell you, is that our “investments” have been ploughed into the playing side of the club, which is coming along nicely and thoroughly professional, but the administration of the club is still amateur, in every sense of the word. The bigger problem is the troupe of clowns responsible for this, and the endless fuckuppery with Lesser, are the same clowns who’ll be responsible for improvements and learning from this mistake. Heids. Sand.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, williebraveheart said:

Or have they just got the drawing upside down? Nothing would surprise me.

You speak in jest, but at the recent members meeting a member referred to it as the North Stand and the President had to ask what end was that. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

12 hours ago, ExiledLichtie said:

Oakley was excellent for us.  I thought he could easily have played at a higher level.  He'll do well for Queens.  I assumed he'd be going to a professional club in England next, not some amateur hour clown show who apparently can't read a rulebook.

It was looking hopeful for a while and then fell off a cliff. Keep working on it though…good signs of progress.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

In my experience (and I've worked with a lot of them) football managers have absolutely no idea what many of the rules are. Why should they? It's not their job to study the rulebooks. I'd be genuinely surprised if any of our former managers knew a player had to be signed before the original date of the tie to be eligible. It's the job of the Club Secretary or someone else at the club taking on that responsibility to let them know who is eligible to play in the tie and who isn't.

To be honest it's a very easy thing to overlook with everything else going on. I've sympathy for them, but it won't save them. They'll be chucked out.

I’d imagine the Simon Murray exit was a major distraction although still four days after Henderson was announced. As mentioned above, we need decent people off the field too. In the same vein though, I still wouldn’t discount that somebody at the SFA missed an e mail. 

[HibeeJibee]

56 minutes ago, QPSpider1867 said:

I think the rule is very harsh for a rescheduled game. If it was a replay then I can understand. 

I suppose there is a risk that teams would deliberately postpone games until players are signed, but it was our opponents pitch that couldn't fulfil the fixture. It is harsh in my opinion.  

It's a very long-standing rule intended to prevent abuse and preserve the integrity of the competition. If you could bring in players for a rearranged game, then there could be an incentive to be unscrupulous and have a tie postponed (or just not try very hard to get it on!) so any new signings could play. By the time a rearranged tie comes along other clubs have been eliminated and the draw has been made, so you could also see 1 club in the tie able to reinforce when their opponent is not - e.g. bringing in loans or released players who hadn't featured for a club which has exited, or shelling-out extra £ on purchases as a lucrative trip to Ibrox or Parkhead awaits.

You could legitimately argue "it's the same for both teams" and do away with the rule, but that's the rationale AFAICS.

Edited February 2, 2023 by HibeeJibee

[Skyline Drifter]

19 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

I’d imagine the Simon Murray exit was a major distraction although still four days after Henderson was announced. As mentioned above, we need decent people off the field too. In the same vein though, I still wouldn’t discount that somebody at the SFA missed an e mail. 

I have no idea what relevance any email to or from the SFA has here? Its a longstanding rule and it is the club's responsibility to ensure it complies.

The SFA are usually quick to come back on any rule queries on player eligibility (I queried something before our game in November and they were back same day) but even if they did miss a query its the responsibility of the club to chase it up not play the player and hope for the best. Its not a defence.

[Northsea80]

Not the best but between lengths of fence/barrier tape and the pitch, there’s a trench that’s been dug out. 

[ExiledLichtie]

I can see why they left it until the end of January to decide the stadium wouldn't be ready in March.  

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

9 minutes ago, Northsea80 said:

Not the best but between lengths of fence/barrier tape and the pitch, there’s a trench that’s been dug out. 

Cheers Northsea - it certainly looks more than minor works. But I'm not a builder.

Any sign of the jacuzzi at the royal box?

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

2 minutes ago, ExiledLichtie said:

I can see why they left it until the end of January to decide the stadium wouldn't be ready in March.  

As far as we know there are currently no plans for that (north) end of the stadium.

[ExiledLichtie]

16 minutes ago, GM1867 said:

As far as we know there are currently no plans for that (north) end of the stadium.

Imagine being the ballboy in that quagmire!  

[an86]

20 minutes ago, GM1867 said:

As far as we know there are currently no plans for that (north) end of the stadium.

If there was, it’s not like they’d actually tell us anyway.

[I Zingari]

1 hour ago, HibeeJibee said:

It's a very long-standing rule intended to prevent abuse and preserve the integrity of the competition. If you could bring in players for a rearranged game, then there could be an incentive to be unscrupulous and have a tie postponed (or just not try very hard to get it on!) so any new signings could play. By the time a rearranged tie comes along other clubs have been eliminated and the draw has been made, so you could also see 1 club in the tie able to reinforce when their opponent is not - e.g. bringing in loans or released players who hadn't featured for a club which has exited, or shelling-out extra £ on purchases as a lucrative trip to Ibrox or Parkhead awaits.

You could legitimately argue "it's the same for both teams" and do away with the rule, but that's the rationale AFAICS.

Clubs could just as easily engineer the postponement of league games. I appreciate that Queen's Park were at fault in this case. However, speaking generally, it does seem a bit unfair that a club could lose a couple of key players in the transfer window, sign one replacement and be unable to field that replacement in a rearranged cup tie.

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

21 minutes ago, ExiledLichtie said:

Imagine being the ballboy in that quagmire!  

I was hoping the committee might take on that job.

[an86]

8 minutes ago, I Zingari said:

Clubs could just as easily engineer the postponement of league games. I appreciate that Queen's Park were at fault in this case. However, speaking generally, it does seem a bit unfair that a club could lose a couple of key players in the transfer window, sign one replacement and be unable to field that replacement in a rearranged cup tie.

Fair or unfair, we’ve got to be on top of the rules. It’s basic stuff. We’re a professional football club now, so there’s absolutely no excuse for it. There should be all sorts of procedures before every single game, checks and double checks, on things like suspensions and registrations.
 

It’s down to the Chief Executive to make sure that the football club is functioning from the top down. Outsiders will think “top of the Championship and still greeting”, those who know better will see a building site, a probable Scottish Cup exit due to an admin error, and home games being played 25/30miles away being changed at relatively short notice. We are not a properly functioning football club and that’s totally unacceptable when there’s someone being paid big bucks to ensure that that’s what we are. 

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

Lesser Hampden (from Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Hampden

In 1923, Queen's Park were looking for an alternative venue for their reserves and youth teams, with a basic pitch to the south of the main stand at Hampden Park increasingly being used as a car park. The club purchased a farm on the west side of Hampden and built a pitch and stands.  When it opened in 1924, Lesser Hampden had a capacity of 12,000.

I just found that interesting - I know building standards were less rigorous then, but 12,000 capacity in two years!

[mcjameos]

9 minutes ago, GM1867 said:

Lesser Hampden (from Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Hampden

In 1923, Queen's Park were looking for an alternative venue for their reserves and youth teams, with a basic pitch to the south of the main stand at Hampden Park increasingly being used as a car park. The club purchased a farm on the west side of Hampden and built a pitch and stands.  When it opened in 1924, Lesser Hampden had a capacity of 12,000.

I just found that interesting - I know building standards were less rigorous then, but 12,000 capacity in two years!

I remember going to lesser in the early 80s but dont recall anything resembling stands only grassy slopes - but that could be my memory playing tricks. Mind you 12000 people would soon have made it resemble the photos posted above

Edited February 2, 2023 by mcjameos

[Jamie_M]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its a longstanding rule and it is the club's responsibility to ensure it complies.

Under current processes, it certainly is and there's no excuse for a club not doing their due diligence.

That's not to say the current process couldn't do with some modernisation with automated checking and flagging.

Think Lee Johnson called that out when Hibs fielded the ineligible Rocky Bushiri.  While accepting the club's fault it was also pointed out that in England, the Referee Extranet system automatically flags player issues whereas in Scotland it's still 'check the list or contact us' which seems a bit dated.

OK, that was around a suspension but the same could be applied to registration eligibility.