The Spider

thanks for that "lok" - other than loanees every QP player is either amateur or re-instated amateur

Agreed, you would think he would be more professional than that.

As we all know a few years ago the league insisted that our players be registered on professional contracts for a sum of £1. That has not been the case for some time now, and whilst some on here wish to use that previous technicality to circumvent due process. Re-quoted my original version for you as you seem to have deleted part of by mistake - I think it's an insult to the players concerned to suggest that they were professional when they clearly weren't being paid for playing for us. Boris has nailed it when he says that it's the future that matters, so it's now up to the Committee to produce business models for both scenarios and let the members decide the best way forward.

Perhaps you would like to back-up that purported statement of fact with an example of one of the games this took place in. I'll be happy to provide the team-lines for it so that we can all see who these so-called professional players were. Otherwise, please feel free to continue to throw these random statements at us so we can all take them as gospel.

Indeed we do, which as i previously highlighted is why clause 6.2 had to be amended to include "other players", but who pays the wages of these loanees? It may be a fine dividing line between fieldng a professional or in the case of so many nowadays former (i.e. re-instated amateurs) professional players, but the bottom line is that Queen's Park have never paid any player to play for us which as i understand it is what this debate is all about..............i.e. whether in future QP should be paying our players. So all our E J James's can highlight all the instances they want about how we have pushed the boundaries of amateurism to it's fullest extent, but until we cross the line of actually paying players then within the guidelines of our constitution we continue to field amateur teams and remain an amateur club, albeit not as pure as we originally were. The time will come for the President & Committee to either "piss or get off the potty" on this issue, but until then it's "business" as usual.

It has been suggested with some authority earlier in this thread that because our players are signed on professional contracts then that already makes us a professional club with no need to consult members on any change to the constitution. Interesting though that when i make further enquiries I establish that none of our players (i.e. excluding loanees) are signed on professional contracts. As we all know a few years ago the league insisted that our players be registered on professional contracts for a sum of £1. That has not been the case for some time now, and whilst some on here wish to use that previous technicality to circumvent due process I think factual accuracy is kind of important in a matter as important as this. Just for the record, here is the form on the SFA website, and all of our players are registered as amateur per the box in A4. Therefore any suggestions that the club is already a professional one simply by virtue of being part of a professional league (as has always been the case whatever it's now called!) are misleading, inaccurate and utter bunkum.

They pat us down too so don't take it personally. Something we'll hopefully be rid of when we appoint "Common Sense Security" and "Decent Food at Decent Prices" at our new stadium.

Wot? (but spelt differently)

To be fair though, I think Stirling can claim an assist by only playing one of our former "deadly duo", and him for only 10 minutes.

agreed Mick, and glad to see that the BBC have updated it now My impatience to highlight that the natural order of things had been restored obviously got the better of me

We may hope that Willie, we may even believe that, but history suggests we should never ever come out and say that.

Life isn't always fair Mick, but IF (here we go again!) changing our status requires a change in our constitution, then them's the rules and we have to abide by them. The sooner that the "IF" issue is clarified then the better for all and we can move on one way or the other - wouldn't you agree?

Read my previous posts again you numptie. I did exactly that several days before the meeting and never had the courtesy of a reply, or even any acknowledgement. That's what I was complaining about in the first place, so thanks for just rubbing that in a little bit more. And before you helpfully suggest that i follow this up with the club, I'll be doing exactly that. Jeez, with friends like you.............

Unlucky M8. The only thing that would have made it funnier for the rest of us though would have been if you (still?) lived in Aberden

I thought that was what you were supposed to do when you beat a big club who believe their natural status should be in a league higher than the one they presently occupy, unless you are suggesting that it's tinpot stuff to over-celebrate when you beat a diddy outfit. Fair point. On behalf of the team I apologise, although in their defence most of them are new signings who have yet to learn that QP beating Clyde has been the natural order of things for decades now.

It's the natural order of things.

Could you please run that "natural order" thing past me one more time? Actually, on second thoughts don't bother. Looks pretty natural to me .

Thanks. That's helpful. I really should have known better than to follow the recommended procedure.

Well done - you finally nailed it. How do we go about finding out whether they do or not?

Now there's a co-incidence. Mark Roberts told us he'd been at that game and noticed that every time he spoke the guy in front of him kept writing in what looked like a trainspotting diary, so he told us that thereafter he raised his voice at certain points in the hope that the "gullable cretin" would feed false info back to Danny Lennon. Hope you didn't let us down.

Let's see what tomorrow brings first though.

I'm sure I've seen that script before somewhere. Oh yes, i remember now. All the Clyde fans on the QP thread last year going to great lengths to highlight how irrelevant we are to you. You read them, so stop being a hypocrite and make up your own ripostes in future.

That's fair Annie and i respect that view. However I would repeat that long before the Hampden debacle, opinion was canvassed against a background of enabling us to regularly compete at a higher level, rather than the current necessity argument. Whether it would have resurfaced again without the loss of Hampden only those concerned know for certain, but what sticks in the back of my mind are the extraordinary lengths that Ross Caven began to go in order to get Gerry Crawley into a position of power at the club right after his initial canvassing failed to get him the outcome he was looking for. So the cynic in me believes it would have come up again by now anyway, not because of the Hampden issue but more because of the fear of the Lowland League trapdoor opening for us. My lingering concern about not being told now about whether this will be put to the members for a vote or not is whether the Committee will leave making that announcement until the last possible moment because they have no intention of doing so and want the path of least resistance. As others have said, it's inconceivable that they would go down this route without already having taken professional advice on whether a change to the constitution is required (perhaps TMWNN is the club lawyer ), so why are they so reluctant to share that opinion with us?

Are you suggesting this initiative wouldn't be taking place if the SFA had signed up for another 20 years? The committee began canvassing opinion years ago, and whilst I completely agree that the Hampden situation has hastened things, I believe it's been inevitable ever since we began playing loanees. Re-instating Ross McFarlane's amateur status for a couple of games was one thing (we'd done the same with R S McColl and others 100 years earlier), but that was something completely different. I'm happy for the club to take this at their own pace to reach the right answer for what's best of the club, so long as they declare now who will be asked to make the final decision however far down the line that may be. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Do you?