The Queen of the South thread

[Fae_the_'briggs]

Don't forget it was during Davie Rae's tenure that the club almost died. The Cup Final year should have been a springboard to better things but it was badly mismanaged financially. We had the Save Our South campaign, collecting buckets and people writing off loans to keep us going. It's okay having a media friendly Chairman but he has to be able to run a financially stable business. 

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

I was one of those that was against the idea, and I think my main reasons for it still ring true.  Again I'm perhaps showing my naivety as to how a board is formed and what their purpose is, but to me the role of supporters and the role of board members are very different and there isn't a lot of overlap.

It goes without saying that the relationship between the board and the fans is absolutely vital and at present is probably the biggest danger to the clubs very existence, but I'm not sure putting fans on the board is the solution to this.  There are countless ways for a football club to engage with its supporters without electing them to the board.  Unfortunately the club chooses not to do any of them.

 

That's probably largely fair and accurate.

A central plank of the objections (not necessarily yours), however, was that the current set up was going so well that altering it was unnecessary.  There's an irony now in seeing the widespread clamour for boardroom change.

[the_palmy_pie]

14 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

When the club resisted the notion of fan representation a few years ago, the stance was bafflingly, widely supported on here.

Don’t think it’ll ever happen especially when Hewitson is Chairman. When Norman Blount stood up and spoke at the AGM and asked the Trust a few questions regarding finance they quite simply couldn’t answer. They have and never will have enough money to make a difference. Our Barflies and now the Tanner Fund supporters will put more money a year in to Queens. Maybe they should ask for a seat on the board.

[Monkey Tennis]

20 minutes ago, the_palmy_pie said:

Don’t think it’ll ever happen especially when Hewitson is Chairman. When Norman Blount stood up and spoke at the AGM and asked the Trust a few questions regarding finance they quite simply couldn’t answer. They have and never will have enough money to make a difference. Our Barflies and now the Tanner Fund supporters will put more money a year in to Queens. Maybe they should ask for a seat on the board.

Again, I'm guessing that's fair.  I certainly don't know enough about the details of the Trust's proposal to challenge it.

At the time though, I found myself at least in sympathy with the principle of fans having some sort of representation. 

However, the prevailing view on here saw things otherwise, often because the status quo was seen as attractive.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

Why does everyone think that being on the board means you have to punt money into the club? 

Directors typically don't punt their own money into companies to offset their own commercial failures. Directors are employees of the company, in theory picked for their business management ability, and if the company makes losses under them the directors typically get sacked. 

The board said at last year's AGM that they cover any deficit that arises. Having competent businessmen running the club should mean that a deficit doesn't arise.  

Our directors holding onto their seats just because they can provide money is nothing more than paying for the undeserved privilege of sitting in the directors box. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Priti priti priti Patel

[happysouth]

I was one of those that was against the idea, and I think my main reasons for it still ring true.  Again I'm perhaps showing my naivety as to how a board is formed and what their purpose is, but to me the role of supporters and the role of board members are very different and there isn't a lot of overlap.
It goes without saying that the relationship between the board and the fans is absolutely vital and at present is probably the biggest danger to the clubs very existence, but I'm not sure putting fans on the board is the solution to this.  There are countless ways for a football club to engage with its supporters without electing them to the board.  Unfortunately the club chooses not to do any of them.
 

But hewitson doesn't care or even know that he is disliked so he doesn't see any need for a figurehead. The club is financially sound so he has done his job as far as he's concerned.

Edited to add :- I'm not defending him at all I'm just stating his position. He is not someone who looks at social media so he doesn't see the backlash against the board. He is a completely different mindset to you, me and almost all qos supporters.

[Mustafa_sheet]

5 hours ago, happysouth said:

But hewitson doesn't care or even know that he is disliked so he doesn't see any need for a figurehead. The club is financially sound so he has done his job as far as he's concerned.

Edited to add :- I'm not defending him at all I'm just stating his position. He is not someone who looks at social media so he doesn't see the backlash against the board. He is a completely different mindset to you, me and almost all qos supporters.

This ^^^

[ShadyLane]

Anyone know what this is about?

[die hard doonhamer]

4 minutes ago, ShadyLane said:

Anyone know what this is about?
 

Read back through the account timeline. The SLO committee have resigned. 

Interestingly, no mention of it on the OS (as far as I can see). 

[ShadyLane]

Got ye, thanks. I'm behind.

[A-Mac]

Sad to read about the SLO, they have done some good work over the time. A lot of disconnect currently between the club and supporters.

[the_palmy_pie]

Who actually owns the Queens Arena ? 

[the_palmy_pie]

19 hours ago, A-Mac said:

Sad to read about the SLO, they have done some good work over the time. A lot of disconnect currently between the club and supporters.

And unfortunately I think it’ll continue for some time. Certain people at the club just don’t want to listen and don’t want to change. There lies the problem. 

[SUPERSOUTH]

3 hours ago, the_palmy_pie said:

Who actually owns the Queens Arena ? 

No Idea but the cafe should be open match days even if the club have to pay staff to work at it... Ita got all the equipment, get using it and make the club money... 

Edited December 12, 2021 by SUPERSOUTH

[nomad]

13 hours ago, the_palmy_pie said:

Who actually owns the Queens Arena ? 

Companies house shows that there is an unsatisfied floating charge in favour of Hollywood Trust. Floating charges are not as simple, but think mortgage and the fact that people may think they own their home, but its actually the bank who supply the mortgage until charges are satisfied. 

[the_palmy_pie]

1 hour ago, nomad said:

Companies house shows that there is an unsatisfied floating charge in favour of Hollywood Trust. Floating charges are not as simple, but think mortgage and the fact that people may think they own their home, but its actually the bank who supply the mortgage until charges are satisfied. 

It’s also interesting to hear that businesses that use the Arena have their rent invoices made out to Building Craftsman Ltd

[mwwqos321]

The issue I have is that the club is actually owned by the Shareholders but they are as much in the dark as to what is going on as the supporters. There is an AGM around this time every year but other than electing the same board members we have no say on the running of the club and Hewitson being a self confessed technophobe is clearly not comfortable in front of people becoming defensive to any question he deems critical of his Chairmanship. We need a radical overhaul of the club structure and accountability to the supporters without whom it would not exist. Now would be a good time for such a move before we end up in the lower divisions and potential oblivion. The question is what is available to the shareholders within the clubs constitution to instigate such change?

[nomad]

1 hour ago, mwwqos321 said:

The issue I have is that the club is actually owned by the Shareholders but they are as much in the dark as to what is going on as the supporters. There is an AGM around this time every year but other than electing the same board members we have no say on the running of the club and Hewitson being a self confessed technophobe is clearly not comfortable in front of people becoming defensive to any question he deems critical of his Chairmanship. We need a radical overhaul of the club structure and accountability to the supporters without whom it would not exist. Now would be a good time for such a move before we end up in the lower divisions and potential oblivion. The question is what is available to the shareholders within the clubs constitution to instigate such change?

That will be in the articles of association from 1972, 1992 and 1996. As those from '72 and '92 are archived, a copy would have to be requested. In '96 several articles were passed around share ownership. But it does stipulate that any general meeting must have the necessary quorum. That is at least 15 persons have to attend. It also stipulates that any director must hold at least 250 shares to be appointed. In essence, the current incumbents position will be subject to board approval unless the shareholders come together as a majority and serve written notice for the removal of an under performing director. The articles state the board may be made up of at least three members, but there is allowance for up to 12. However the companies act 2006 does allow for a majority of shareholders to pass a resolution in respect to removal of under performing board members. And there is room for further appointments to the board. The directors should have service level agreements. Board members have a fiduciary duty to the club. Any service level agreement will contain a clause around conflict of interest and even in the event of no service level agreement, a directors role being fiduciary will imply no conflicts. Mr Hewitson is listed as a director of 12 companies. My own personal opinion not substantiated is that it is extremely unlikely that his role at the club is anything like full time. Other than shareholders, conflict of interest would have to be proven. 

[nomad]

1 hour ago, the_palmy_pie said:

It’s also interesting to hear that businesses that use the Arena have their rent invoices made out to Building Craftsman Ltd

This would have to be substantiated. Re my previous comments. 

[QOSQOS]

I see Obileye was MOM for Livi on Saturday and scored with one of his trademark penalties. Apparently he still has never missed a penalty….