Weesiecodal Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Queens Park should get f**k all IMO. They are one of the richest clubs in the country and choose to stay as an amateur club. They never got a development fee for Douglas because he left on a free, if/when Robertson leaves they will get a development fee and same goes for Connolly. Harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Harsh Not really, their motto is play for the sake of playing. They can afford to go part-time, pay their players fairly and demand transfer fees. They choose not to as there is obviously greater benefits to the club being amateur. You can't get best of both worlds I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weesiecodal Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Not really, their motto is play for the sake of playing. They can afford to go part-time, pay their players fairly and demand transfer fees. They choose not to as there is obviously greater benefits to the club being amateur. You can't get best of both worlds I'm afraid. They still have expenses and overheads. They still have coaches that help develop players. And it's still the right thing (I believe) to recognise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Queens Park should get f**k all IMO. They are one of the richest clubs in the country and choose to stay as an amateur club. They never got a development fee for Douglas because he left on a free, if/when Robertson leaves they will get a development fee and same goes for Connolly. That is incorrect. As an amateur club, the Spiders will not get any development fees for Robertson and Connolly if they leave United. When young players leave a professional club, development fees are payable when they sign for their new club. If the clubs cannot agree a fee, the decision is taken by a tribunal. What's your problem with Queens Park getting development compensation? Why should rich clubs not get fees if they develop young players? You wouldn't like it if United got nothing for Robertson, Gauld and Souttar. Jealousy or double standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 They still have expenses and overheads. They still have coaches that help develop players. And it's still the right thing (I believe) to recognise that. They are entitled to a development fee should any ex player leave for a fee and I've no problem with that. I get why people think they deserve something, but I'm of the opinion that the club picked their status to benefit themselves and therefore shouldn't receive the benefits from both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFARAB82 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 The reasons they dont go semi pro are they not tied into the use of the national stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 That is incorrect. As an amateur club, the Spiders will not get any development fees for Robertson and Connolly if they leave United. When young players leave a professional club, development fees are payable when they sign for their new club. If the clubs cannot agree a fee, the decision is taken by a tribunal. What's your problem with Queens Park getting development compensation? Why should rich clubs not get fees if they develop young players? You wouldn't like it if United got nothing for Robertson, Gauld and Souttar. Jealousy or double standards? Because they are not a professional club by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 The reasons they dont go semi pro are they not tied into the use of the national stadium? They own Hampden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Because they are not a professional club by choice. I don't support such discrimination but you are entitled to your opinion. Do you agree that the Spiders are not entitled to a fee if United sell Robertson and Connolly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I don't support such discrimination but you are entitled to your opinion. Do you agree that the Spiders are not entitled to a fee if United sell Robertson and Connolly? Yes it's my opinion, I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here, just giving my reasons for why. No I don't. I believe they are perfectly entitled to a development fee should they leave for a fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Yes it's my opinion, I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here, just giving my reasons for why. No I don't. I believe they are perfectly entitled to a development fee should they leave for a fee. Legally, the Spiders are not entitled to any development fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 They own Hampden. I'm in the dark about 'ownership' in this case but I would be hugely surprised if this was the case. Not so long ago millions was spent upgrading Hampden - I doubt very much this would have been subsidised in anyway at all by QP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Legally, the Spiders are not entitled to any development fees. Sucks to be them, but as I've said they choose to be an amateur club. There are obviously better benefits to being an amateur club for Queen Park, you cannot have the best of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I'm in the dark about 'ownership' in this case but I would be hugely surprised if this was the case. Not so long ago millions was spent upgrading Hampden - I doubt very much this would have been subsidised in anyway at all by QP. It's 100% Queens park's. The SFA have a 20 year lease, with the option of another 20 year lease. http://www.hampdenpark.co.uk/the-hampden-experience/hampden-history.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 It's 100% Queens park's. The SFA have a 20 year lease, with the option of another 20 year lease. http://www.hampdenpark.co.uk/the-hampden-experience/hampden-history.html Which I would guess in substance means that the SFA effectively 'own it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Which I would guess in substance means that the SFA effectively 'own it'. No, they rent it. "Queen’s Park, who still own the Stadium, are the only Amateur Club playing in the Scottish Football League and are currently in Division 2." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Which I would guess in substance means that the SFA effectively 'own it'. No, Queen's Park own it. They could conceivably punt the SFA out, whereas the opposite could not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 Agree totally with peeeeel. Queen's Park can't have it all ways - either turn semi-pro or stop the bleating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Agree totally with peeeeel. Queen's Park can't have it all ways - either turn semi-pro or stop the bleating. It's possible that they can't turn semi-pro, e.g. the amateur status is protected in their constitution or other legal documents. Others might have definitive information on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeeel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 If Queens Park for some reason cannot turn semi-pro I'd have some sympathy for them, but I can't see any reason why they cannot turn pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.