Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[velo army]

6 hours ago, The Spider said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Finished your homework yet, or have you been too busy looking for your first pube?

Genuinely thought your first comment was cringeworthy. This one saw my arsehole shrink to a decimal point. Brutal patter.

 

[Mark Connolly]

On 2/23/2018 at 07:46, Sergeant Wilson said:

Flog it for whatever, redevelop Lesser Hampden and chase this crowd. I'd burn it down before I sold it to The SFA.

If your house was for sale, would you sell to someone who smashed the windows and set fire to your car on the drive, then offered you 5% of the asking price?

Throw in the fact that the person who has smashed the windows was renting the house for an annual fee that is 40% of what they are offering to pay to buy it outright.

[harry94]

Yes, but it's not a house, and to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here Wilson) but I'm not aware of any other national football federation who would like to buy Hampden as it stands to use as their own stadium instead.
So returning to reality, yes the 33 acre site is worth a fortune to housing, but unfortunately there would be huge demolition and site levelling costs (think about how low the pitch is below ground level), as well as debenture issues to settle. So taking all that into account, do you think that's wise sir?

And £15 million needing repaid in loans if it is repurposed - these liabilities will be taken by the SFA.

Both parties have to look out for their own interests but if QP exit this with substantial financial resources obtained and either continued access to play at Hampden or a redeveloped ground perfect for their needs; I don't see that as in principle being terribly unfair or evil. The proposals we've seen aren't indicative of a big bad FA trying to shaft a wee club.

I don't care what people say either, Hampden isn't a dreadful ground and this is a really good move. Behind the goals are the big problem but on it's day, it's a brilliant atmosphere. A lot of the problems highlighted are going to be the case in any major sports arena that's obtainable to us. Get behind the goals sorted in a Stuttgart type fashion with the pitch lowered by a metre and it'll be a genuinely great ground to watch football in - better than any of the other home nations.

[Gordopolis]

1 hour ago, harry94 said:

And £15 million needing repaid in loans if it is repurposed - these liabilities will be taken by the SFA.

Both parties have to look out for their own interests but if QP exit this with substantial financial resources obtained and either continued access to play at Hampden or a redeveloped ground perfect for their needs; I don't see that as in principle being terribly unfair or evil. The proposals we've seen aren't indicative of a big bad FA trying to shaft a wee club.

I don't care what people say either, Hampden isn't a dreadful ground and this is a really good move. Behind the goals are the big problem but on it's day, it's a brilliant atmosphere. A lot of the problems highlighted are going to be the case in any major sports arena that's obtainable to us. Get behind the goals sorted in a Stuttgart type fashion with the pitch lowered by a metre and it'll be a genuinely great ground to watch football in - better than any of the other home nations.

This.

As I see it the biggest mistake was that this rental situation was allowed to arise in the first place: the SFA should never have been hiring a wee club's ground and tarting it up/maintaining it as a mega-stadium for all these years. If we come out of this with a national stadium that the SFA own and can confidently seek to redevelop and QP having an appropriate ground and a decent financial incentive, then that seems a lot more realistic and desirable for both parties.

Yes, you could say QP are being robbed of a windfall, but realistically, the ground it only worth so much because of its status as our national stadium and because of all the redevelopment that has gone into it as such. I realise the location itself adds a lot of value too - perhaps that should be the thing that determines the figure the SFA offer QP?

[The Spider]

One relevant factor in all of this which has emerged in the last 24 hours is the following post from a fellow QP fan which I've borrowed from the QP thread:

The main issue is that, according to the President, if we knocked down the stand we would have to repay the Lottery Commission £12 million. This is because QP applied for the funding. This is the aspect that I find most disgusting about the SFA’s actions. They were the main beneficiaries of the new stand being built but because QP will be liable to pay back the funding they have us over a barrel. To treat any member club like that is a disgrace. To treat the club that founded the SFA and acted in good faith to deliver the new stand is an absolute outrage.

This sheds a new light on why the SFA are taking such a hard-line stance with us - great for them, but morally reprehensible!

 

[The Spider]

11 hours ago, velo army said:

Genuinely thought your first comment was cringeworthy. This one saw my arsehole shrink to a decimal point. Brutal patter.

 

Wow, I must have been OTT..........first time I've ever seen a jag stepping in for a gypo!

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Wow, I must have been OTT..........first time I've ever seen a jag stepping in for a gypo!

Nice bit of casual racism to complete the heads gone there! Well done.

[harry94]

One relevant factor in all of this which has emerged in the last 24 hours is the following post from a fellow QP fan which I've borrowed from the QP thread:

The main issue is that, according to the President, if we knocked down the stand we would have to repay the Lottery Commission £12 million. This is because QP applied for the funding. This is the aspect that I find most disgusting about the SFA’s actions. They were the main beneficiaries of the new stand being built but because QP will be liable to pay back the funding they have us over a barrel. To treat any member club like that is a disgrace. To treat the club that founded the SFA and acted in good faith to deliver the new stand is an absolute outrage.

This sheds a new light on why the SFA are taking such a hard-line stance with us - great for them, but morally reprehensible!

 

I don't really get that argument tbh (I know it's not your post). So, what, Queen's Park should have just been allowed to pocket £15 million in selling a nationally funded asset, just because of having the national stadium status? It maybe seems harsh but the practical alternative (where liabilities have to be taken) is morally reprehensible towards the SFA and other member clubs.

 

To me, it's a pretty juvenile simplification and just intentional ignorance to play the victim card. Queen's Park will get at least a couple of million AND secured status of a stadium long term out of this. I really don't get why the SFA aren't allowed to negotiate an arrangement without being called names tbh.

 

[The Spider]

2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Nice bit of casual racism to complete the heads gone there! Well done.

Either you're on the wind-up, or you have little knowledge of what Clyde fans actually chant about themselves! My remark had nothing whatsover to do with the travelling community which is an entirely separate body of people, and if ignorance isn't your excuse then you should actually be quite ashamed of that accusation. Not well done.

[The Spider]

56 minutes ago, harry94 said:

Queen's Park will get at least a couple of million AND secured status of a stadium long term out of this.

You've been reading the Daily Record again haven't you Harry? The interesting thing about their little exclusive is that so far the SFA haven't actually made any monetary offer (negotiations aren't at that stage yet) and that figure is one that the journalist simply plucked out of the air. Oh, and the SFA have also indicated that "Hampden " means all 33 acres, so at present there's no guarantee of the long term tenure you refer to.

Who knows what the final deal will be, but for now your statement is quite simply fiction. Our press making up storiers to sell papers - who'd have thought.............................................that there were people like you gullible enough to believe them?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Either you're on the wind-up, or you have little knowledge of what Clyde fans actually chant about themselves! My remark had nothing whatsover to do with the travelling community which is an entirely separate body of people, and if ignorance isn't your excuse then you should actually be quite ashamed of that accusation. Not well done.

Keep telling yourself that grand wizard.
Clyde fans also act as apologists for rapists so lets not see them as some kind of morality barometer here.
Your remark had everything to do with using a racist expression which is aimed at the travelling community. But keep on trucking, you’re doing a great job winning hearts and minds support for your diddy club’s case of extorting money from the SFA.

[The Spider]

3 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Keep telling yourself that grand wizard.
Clyde fans also act as apologists for rapists so lets not see them as some kind of morality barometer here.
Your remark had everything to do with using a racist expression which is aimed at the travelling community. But keep on trucking, you’re doing a great job winning hearts and minds support for your diddy club’s case of extorting money from the SFA.

You clearly have an agenda here ICR - at least be honest and say what's behind this pitiful wind-up. You don't state which club you support, but clearly Gus has upset you by signing your favourite player at some point during the last three seasons. Get over it and let's not pollute what was supposed to be a serious thread about an important topic any further.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You clearly have an agenda here ICR - at least be honest and say what's behind this pitiful wind-up. You don't state which club you support, but clearly Gus has upset you by signing your favourite player at some point during the last three seasons. Get over it and let's not pollute what was supposed to be a serious thread about an important topic any further.

Lol nice try!

[RandomGuy.]

Do Queens Park spend any money on Hampden? I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for them considering it seems like it's entirely SFA money that maintains, and runs, the stadium, and they virtually make a profit due to spending nothing on it but getting rent. 

[The Spider]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Do Queens Park spend any money on Hampden? I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for them considering it seems like it's entirely SFA money that maintains, and runs, the stadium, and they virtually make a profit due to spending nothing on it but getting rent. 

Based solely on the picture you've painted then over the last 20 years  I wouldn't feel any sympathy for them either! However you are missing a crucial part of the equation. Queen's Park had to rightly pay for a sizeable portion of the last stadium £60M re-development, but part of the European funding that was promised to us was withdrawn on a technicality leaving us in the mire. Instead of us renting the stadium to the SFA on a match by mtach basis, which left us free to make additional money from catering, concerts, events etc., the SFA offered to enter into a 20 year lease @ £800k per annum, of which £600k would be spent every year repaying our debt (incl;uding interest over the 20 year period). The big advantage for the SFA was that they got all the catering, concert and events income over those 20 years which made it a good deal for them, and a necessary deal for us.

The other problem for us was that when the fundraising package to redevelop the stadium was put together (before things went awry leading to the back-end funding shortfall of £5.75M which related to the building of the museum, lecture theatre and sports injury clinic), it also included 50 year debentures. 20 years ago there was never any suggestion from the SFA that Hampden wouldn't be their no.1 choice for the duration of those debentures, but if they move to Murayfield then the individual debenture holders are contractually entitled to claim their money back. The SFA well know that to be the case, which is why they believe they are in a very strong position for the forthcoming negotiations. In fairness it should also be noted that part of the reason behind the SFA's change of long tenure stance is because it's been indicated that a forthcoming re-evaluation of Hampden would add £350k to the annual business rates bill under new goverment tax proposals.

There are two fundamental apsects still to be determined here. As morally reprehensible as it is for the SFA to use our future existence as a bargaining tool, it would be equally so not to reimburse the the debenture holders. However legally it may not be necesary as the debenture company is TNS (a wholly owned subsidiary of QP), so it might be possible to liquidate TNS but not QP. Unpleasant, but possibly necessary to ensure the club's survival? The other aspect is what is the true commercial value of 33 acres of a prime housing development site, once levelling costs have been taken into account? Is there enough money there to be able to pay off the debenture holders and leave us with a residual sum of money which is more than the SFA would offer?

Only once that legal and real estate advice has been given will the true scenario emerge.

Returning to your original point though, the reason that we lost full control of the stadium 20 years ago in the first place is that we used up all our historical cash reserves and a whole lot more besides on our part of the re-development funding, in the belief that rental income from football, concerts, events catering and office space would enable us to pay those debts off and leave us with income to maintain and further develop the stadium over the last 20 years. We don't have shareholders, we don't pay players, so all our money goes on youth development and stadium upkeep. You would be quite within your rights to be sceptical about the last part, but consider this. If your land and the property it's on is your ownly asset, how stupid would you have to be not to put every spare penny you had into it to keep it fit for purpose?

20 years ago we had a choice. Do we simply take Hampden (as was then), demolish it, take the cash Asda wanted to spend to create a superstore (which they subsequently did half a mile down the road) and build a new more fit for purpose stadium for ourselves elsewhere, or continue with our historic business model of providing a national stadium (albeit with a lot more outside funding than previously) and living off the rental proceeds. We now find ourselves in a similar position, only that now it will cost a lot more to demolish (it's a far bigger South Stand complex than it used to be), and all our money is tied up with the TNS debenture scheme so we are now a lot worse off.

We don't need anyone's sympathy, but a better understanding of where we are and how we got there might change the public's perception of what's actually going on here.

[Enigma]

Do Queens Park spend any money on Hampden? I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for them considering it seems like it's entirely SFA money that maintains, and runs, the stadium, and they virtually make a profit due to spending nothing on it but getting rent. 

Pretty sure QP get charged for using undersoil heating, floodlights etc. They also don’t make much or any money from hospitality or catering as SFA has the contract. I don’t think QP are exactly rolling in it.

[HoBNob]

Having read that post I'm still not feeling particularly sorry for QP tbh.

[Enigma]

Having read that post I'm still not feeling particularly sorry for QP tbh.

I just don’t get the hate really. I mean if they were obviously loaded and were spunking big money on players Gretna style, but they’re not, they’re in a relegation fight in League One. Whatever financial benefits they are supposed to be getting it clearly isn’t working out very well for them.

[HoBNob]

9 hours ago, Enigma said:

 

I just don’t get the hate really. I mean if they were obviously loaded and were spunking big money on players Gretna style, but they’re not, they’re in a relegation fight in League One. Whatever financial benefits they are supposed to be getting it clearly isn’t working out very well for them.

 

I don't hate them, not even a little bit. On the contrary I don't get the hate for the SFA in this instance. 

[The Spider]

52 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

I don't hate them, not even a little bit. On the contrary I don't get the hate for the SFA in this instance. 

Then allow me to clarify. When Hampden was re-developed 20 years ago various bodies (EEC grants, local councils, BT etc.) and QP ploughed in money to keep the stadium going. This included Joe Public who purchased 50 year debentures on the assumption that Hampden would remain the National Stadium for 50 years. At that time the SFA were quite happy with that arrangement and never said a word about "well that's at your own risk as we might have a re-think further down the line".

So now (and I concede that they are perfectly legally entitled to!) the SFA sense an opportunity to get Hampden for a fraction of the price they would need to fork out for another 20 years rent, as they recognise that QP are potentially legally liable to repay Joe Public for loss of debenture priviliges if we reject the SFA's offer. Now you may call that smart commercialism, but I take a dimmer view, hence my "morally reprehensible" remark.