Glasgow1999

No. Better to risk financial security by adding to major financial burdens by paying salaries, that will lead to less money to invest in youth and have less opportunities for players moving into first team due to having professionals players.

How will having professionals and amateurs going to work? Will certainly lead to disharmony between the players and who could blame them? What exactly will the 'philosophy' of the Club be? If you are any good we will pay you and if you are not you get nothing?

Good points.

Not to mention Berwick, East Stirling and Gretna.

Has any club in SPFL 2 got a manager with 'pedigree' ? QPFC have had the likes of Billy Stark and Gus McPherson who could be described as having pedigree. There are lots of managers looking for jobs, and so there will never be a shortage. As has been pointed out several times, the Club currently is cash rich and so could afford to bring in a manager with 'pedigree' if required.

You can have as many votes as you like, but you still need 75%.

When the Club has been in the first division gates were not greatly higher, it largely depends on the opposition and if they have significant support. Prize money also is not hugely significant in the higher league. I also dont see sponsors falling over themselves just because the Club could be higher in the current league or even in the next league. However, wages could be a huge cost and over weigh any benefits of potentially doing better in games.

It's a legal requirement to make the change advocated that 75% of membership must agree. People's views about whether it is justified or not is not relevant.

Committee members have always and will if our current structure continues the option to stand down at anytime. If think it is very dangerous to advocate that members vote in a particular way because otherwise committee members may resign. Votes should be made on the basis of proposition solely. Why would the youth system and community programs end if the vote was not positive? As has been pointed out a number of times the Club is in a cash positive position, able to maintain these structures and would also not have to start paying wages. Most other clubs dont have these structures primarily as they have to pay players. Where is the evidence that turning professional will increase the Clubs finances? Going professional would also not guarantee being relegated. Whatever status the Club has this can never be ignored and so decisions about the ground need to be made on this basis. However, the better the ground is will help its commercial viability for lots of different options.

There are a number of clubs with high aspirations in the lowland league and some good football. Don't think it's the end of the world as many claim. There is much speculation of changing league structure and it's quite likely current lower leagues will be expanded.

Yes but how many times did QPFC finish bottom?

Yes of course. To win the Champions League or to be successful in major leagues money is required. Many teams have won it. Given enough money any team can progress, remember Gretna? But to compete against professionals as amateurs for so many years - nothing but amazing! How many have done that?

What are your ambitions? Premier league/Champions League? Realistically, league 1 is probably the best which could and has been achieved in recent years. Going professional is risky, there are a lot of clubs who have gone bankrupt and many today on the edge of it. My ambitions, 1) To not be like all the rest, have different values and aims. The Club could have gone pro, many years ago and would have been bigger than the Old Firm. Were the committee wrong then? I don't think so. Being an amateur club in professional leagues is in my opinion a bigger achievement than winning the Champions League. This was not easy and will not get easier. If supporters want a Club who could climb the leagues if some money turns up, they could turn to a club like Clyde. 2) Continue to promote youth. Many clubs at this level dont have this feature as they cannot afford it, because majority of money goes on wages. QPFC could easily fall into this trap. The SFA should promote youth football at all levels and that means rewarding those that do so regardless of their status. The Club have a very strong argument, two of latest Scotland line up came from QPFC youth with many other notably players. Do Scotland and all the other Clubs who have benefitted want to put this at risk or begrudge some reward for all this good work? This should be highlighted and lobbied for a change of heart. 3) Stay financially viable. I dont believe signing some players or given some current players some cash would lead to greater attendances. The Old Firm are not going away and their support is not heading to Mount Florida. However, paying wages is a major added cost and could easily reach six figures. Instead offering other incentives can be a motivating factor.

Going professional is a lot like Brexit! What does it mean? Offering best youth players minimum wage contracts to ensure compensation; paying a few players minimum wage; paying all players minimum wage; paying some players competitive salaries; who knows? If the vote has a positive result, the committee can do what they see fit and this pandora's box can never be shut again. One thing is certain, the loss of Hampden rent and paying some sort of wages will be a huge financial drain which may be ok for a few years but could end in a disaster far worse than lowland league. All these risks just to try and stay in SPFL 2 ( which Berwick and East Stirling could not do despite paying wages) is one colossal gamble.

Yes but we should be strongly challenging their interpretation.

The Club need to push the point that it is. Who would suffer if we received compensation?

If you dont think QPFC is a special Club which is different to all the rest I really worry!

True, and the club should be rightly proud to be a stepping stone for the careers of players who move up the divisions or onto earn international caps. I would never want us to hold back any player who has a chance to play at a higher level, but recently they have been moving to our league rivals, giving up more of their time to travel to clubs out with the Glasgow area they live and work in, to earn some more money at clubs that are playing at the same level as us with similar chances of promotion....or relegation. Yes but some who moved were not first team regulars and their replacements have been as good if not better!

I think we should be treated differently. With all respect to the other clubs you mentioned, their influence on Scottish and world football is no way near QPFC. The Club should be pushing the influence it has had for Scottish football ... hampden, first international game etc

QPFC have always been a unique club and a proud tradition for Scotland. I dont see why any club or the SFA would object to us receiving compensation for a youth player. Any monies received would just be put back into youth and not to pay players. Teams at our level should be in favour of this, otherwise we would increase the competition for professional players and probably lead to an increase in wage demands at our level.

Why can't it be tried?

If we stay amateur, young players have a far greater chance of getting in first team and so this is an incentive to sign. If we go professional it must mean less if not no money for youth teams (many semi pro teams at our level don,t have youth teams as all monies go to first team). What should happen is pressure being put on SFA to allow the Club to get compensation for youth players. Who would be against this idea and SFA have the power to allow this to happen. Other Clubs (and Scotland) ultimately benefit from the likes of Robertson and Shankland. So the Club receiving compensation is fair and just. If the Club change focus to payments and away from development, football will be the loser.

If players perform well, they will leave regardless of whether we are professional or not?

Do they?

Think the committee need to change the constitution which requires a vote with 75 percent in favour. Is that 75 percent of the total membership or just those who vote. If it's the former it would mean anyone not voting would count as a no?