The Queen's Park 2018-19 Thread

[The Spider]

45 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said:

I've not followed this story too closely, so can someone outline what the exact differences between the two parties are?

SFA currently pay £800,000 a year for Hampden. Murrayfield available for less, yes?

SFA wish to buy Hampden from Queen's Park or move to Murrayfield, yes?

In March, QP agreed in principle to sell as they cannot afford to go on without Scotland playing at Hampden because, should they go...

"...the club's subsidiary, The National Stadium Company face a £4.5m bill for the repayment of debenture seats sold in 1999.

They would also be required to return half of a £24m Millennium Commission grant handed over as part of a £60m upgrade 18 years ago if Hampden's status as 'The National Stadium' ends before 2040."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5563873/Queens-Park-attempt-sell-Hampden-Scottish-FA-i.html

It is suggested within the article below...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-plan-buy-hampden-deal-12067172

that Hampden has little worth beyond football because of the costs of clearing the site.

The same article deal could be worth something "significantly less" than £5 million to QP.

QP want Lesser upgraded as part of any deal. Is this the sticking point?

 

I think that's a reasonably fair assesment cmontheloknow, but to the best of my knowledge misses a couple of key points

1.  This whole situation has come about because although the debenture period was 40 years, the SFA wanted to have two 20 year deals rather than one at 40 to allow them to review the deal at the halfway point. The relationship between QP and the SFA 20 years ago was such that it was anticipated that it this point would be something akin to a standard "rent review" rather than the situation which has now developed.
2. Yes QP would like Lesser Hampden upgraded, but as far as I'm aware (based on what's been said above rather than direct knowledge) it appears that the SFA want us out of the entire Hampden complex completely!

For your benefit and that of anyone else trying to catch up on this story, allow me to further clarify.

Despite what some visitors to this thread (from one club in particular you'll notice!) will try to tell you, nobody at QP wants or expects to be subsidised. What we do want is to be treated fairly.

Let nobody be in any doubt. The SFA have taken a particular set of circumstances (i.e. that we are only halway through the debenture period) and used them to their full advantage. Some might consider that to be unscrupulous, whilst others might deem that to be commercially astute.

So the SFA have the full upper hand in negotiations, and can basically do what they want in the full knowledge that if we don't capitulate then we will go bust. They won't agree to another 20 year deal, and why would they now that they have us by the short and curlies, because in 20 years time the debenture period will have expired meaning that we could sell the ground for full market value were they to play hardball then.

So how should they treat their oldest club, who provided them with many of the laws of the game, inaugurated the Scottish Cup, provided them with the full side for the world's oldest International fixture, had the vision to build the National Stadium etc. etc?

Personally, and you may take a different view, I would hope that negotiations would be conducted with a little bit of respect. By all means the SFA can use their upper hand to secure an advantageous deal for them, but do they absolutely have to screw us into the ground and put our entire future at risk? If £2M is all they want / can afford to pay then fair enough, but the nasty bit is to chuck us out altogether.

Fair enough if you now own the Hampden pitch and want it to lie unused for 40+ Saturdays in the course of the year, but other than pure vindictiveness can anyone explain to me how the SFA benefit by refusing to allow us to remain at Lesser Hampden?

The only time that part of the complex would be used by them is to afford visiting International teams training facilities on the day preceding a match, although if they wished to forego the Largs option it could also be used by the Scottish team for the same purpose. But otherwise it will lie empty and un-maintained for most of the year, so where is the disadvantage to them in allowing us to retain the use of it as our new permanent home, along with use of the adjacent parking?

I genuinely can't get my head around that aspect (if indeed true!), so would love to know why that's apparently not included in the deal when it's such an easy concession to grant?

Telling us "there's £2M, now go and f**k off and good luck building a new stadium and surviving on the balance" hardly seems appropriate for an organisation who should be balancing their business acumen against their duty to protect their member clubs!

Edited July 21, 2018 by The Spider

[cmontheloknow]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

I think that's a reasonably fair assesment cmontheloknow, but to the best of my knowledge misses a couple of key points

1.  This whole situation has come about because although the debenture period was 40 years, the SFA wanted to have two 20 year deals rather than one at 40 to allow them to review the deal at the halfway point. The relationship between QP and the SFA 20 years ago was such that it was anticipated that it this point would be something akin to a standard "rent review" rather than the situation which has now developed.
2. Yes QP would like Lesser Hampden upgraded, but as far as I'm aware (based on what's been said above rather than direct knowledge) it appears that the SFA want us out of the entire Hampden complex completely!

For your benefit and that of anyone else trying to catch up on this story, allow me to further clarify.

Despite what some visitors to this thread (from one club in particular you'll notice!) will try to tell you, nobody at QP wants or expects to be subsidised. What we do want is to be treated fairly.

Let nobody be in any doubt. The SFA have taken a particular set of circumstances (i.e. that we are only halway through the debenture period) and used them to their full advantage. Some might consider that to be unscrupulous, whilst others might deem that to be commercially astute.

So the SFA have the full upper hand in negotiations, and can basically do what they want in the full knowledge that if we don't capitulate then we will go bust. They won't agree to another 20 year deal, and why would they now that they have us by the short and curlies, because in 20 years time the debenture period will have expired meaning that we could sell the ground for full market value were they to play hardball then.

So how should they treat their oldest club, who provided them with many of the laws of the game, inaugurated the Scottish Cup, provided them with the full side for the world's oldest International fixture, had the vision to build the National Stadium etc. etc?

Personally, and you may take a different view, I would hope that negotiations would be conducted with a little bit of respect. By all means the SFA can use their upper hand to secure an advantageous deal for them, but do they absolutely have to screw us into the ground and put our entire future at risk? If £2M is all they want / can afford to pay then fair enough, but the nasty bit is to chuck us out altogether.

Fair enough if you now own the Hampden pitch and want it to lie unused for 40+ Saturdays in the course of the year, but other than pure vindictiveness can anyone explain to me how the SFA benefit by refusing to allow us to remain at Lesser Hampden?

The only time that part of the complex would be used by them is to afford visiting International teams training facilities on the day preceding a match, although if they wished to forego the Largs option it could also be used by the Scottish team for the same purpose. But otherwise it will lie empty and un-maintained for most of the year, so where is the disadvantage to them in allowing us to retain the use of it as our new permanent home, along with use of the adjacent parking?

I genuinely can't get my head around that aspect (if indeed true!), so would love to know why that's apparently not included in the deal when it's such an easy concession to grant?

Telling us "there's £2M, now go and f**k off and good luck building a new stadium and surviving on the balance" hardly seems appropriate for an organisation who should be balancing their business acumen against their duty to protect their member clubs!

Thanks for the clarification Spider, hopefully there can be a resolution found that suits all parties well enough.

I suppose a further question I would have is if Armageddon returns - though it's only been six years since it last visited our shores - and QP did not get the Scotland sale on acceptable terms, could they sell the bulk of the land for development, fund the upgrade of Lesser AND have enough left to pay off what was owed?

Edited July 21, 2018 by cmontheloknow

[williebraveheart]

The fly in the ointment is the debt to the Lottery. If that had to be repaid when taken in consideration of selling to developers less the demolition costs plus the cost of developing Lesser I very much doubt that it is a viable option. An asset is only an asset when somebody wants it and is only worth what they are prepared to give for it.

I join everybodys' condemnation of the SFA but the ball is quite firmly in their court. They are a leaving tenant. There is nobody else wanting in. They will stay under certain conditions. They must be engaged in negotiation or there is nothing. I am sure that the club are doing their best under difficult circumstances but the overriding outcome for me is that there is still a QPFC. Forget heritage, history, tit for tat. This is now and is for real. Our ball is on the slates and we must make sure we still have a piece of it when it comes down.

[shawfield shed boy]

Coining it in for too long. Now shitting themselves....

Your apparently amatuers so piss off to the Fosters league with your bowlers hats and grasses

[an86]

12 minutes ago, shawfield shed boy said:

Coining it in for too long. Now shitting themselves....

Your apparently amatuers so piss off to the Fosters league with your bowlers hats and grasses

Would rather we played in a five-a-side league than sign a rapist tbh.

[The Spider]

15 minutes ago, an86 said:

Would rather we played in a five-a-side league than sign a rapist, drug dealer or gbh convict tbh.

fixed that for you.........you should also enquire why their much heralded pre-season striker signing is the only 1st team squad player not to have had a run-out for them this season so far!

[cfcuk]

Hampden has drained money from Scottish football for years and to be honest queens park rode on the back of it. Like when we got booted out of shawfiield nobody gave a toss so don't expect their will be much sympathy for queens park maybe it's time it stood on it's own two feet restructure the club and drop the facade of amateurs
Ok you get completely booted out of hampden complex do what we did ground share
Time to suck it up guys quite happy to stick the boot into Clyde and gloat at the thought of us heading for lowland league
Well you could drop into there and build up again
Ps I do hope you get to retain lesser hampden and it gets a redevelopment.

[haufdaft]

....you should also enquire why their much heralded pre-season striker signing is the only 1st team squad player not to have had a run-out for them this season so far!

Go on then. Tell us.

[DundeeSpider1867]

Any ideas what Miller being hooked was about? Play is not direct enough at the moment IMO

[an86]

Decent enough today. Knocked it around nicely and an absolute belter of a winner. A few wee ropey moments at the back, but pleasing enough. Next two games will be massive challenges.

In terms of our future, there’s not a single QP fan who values the opinion of fans of a club that harbours racists and rapists, so not really worth wasting the data on your phone by contributing.

Edited July 21, 2018 by an86

[the_bully_wee]

3 minutes ago, an86 said:

In terms of our future, there’s not a single QP fan who value the opinion of fans of a club that harbours racists and rapists, so not really worth wasting the data on your phone by contributing.

Your bizarre hang-up on Clyde will be about the only professional league-level interest you have in about 3 years' time. Worth holding on to, sweetie.

[williebraveheart]

Saw more positives than negatives today. Defence as a unit could be tighter and with slightly crisper midfield play I think we could worry a few teams. Roberts looks the part.

[an86]

13 minutes ago, the_bully_wee said:

Your bizarre hang-up on Clyde will be about the only professional league-level interest you have in about 3 years' time. Worth holding on to, sweetie.

Just the four rape/race hate apologists swarming this thread, today. There would be no need for me to comment, otherwise.

[the_bully_wee]

9 minutes ago, an86 said:

Just the four rape/race hate apologists swarming this thread, today. There would be no need for me to comment, otherwise.

Forgive us for showing concern for the team which founded football as we know it. So ungrateful!

[The Spider]

4 hours ago, haufdaft said:

Go on then. Tell us.

Happy to call your bluff my friend as funnily enough you already know exactly to what I was referring.

On 15/07/2018 at 22:25, haufdaft said:

Given the speculation on here about Hopkirk, I'd hope for some kind of explanation regarding his absence from the squad or at least a reference to him in the preview for the match against QoS. It certainly is curious that we have had updates about Lang's injury but nothing about Hopkirk.

Now do you really want me to copy and paste what prompted you to say that (obviously for the player's sake I'd prefer not to), or are you going to cut your losses and retreat back to your own thread like a good chap?

 

 

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, the_bully_wee said:

Forgive us for showing concern for the team which founded football as we know it. So ungrateful!

For once I agree. I mean we could be a lot worse off and be a club with no ground, no chequered history like ours and no £2M to look forward to, so we should be grateful really and thanks for your help in adding some perspective to our concerns.

[haufdaft]

(obviously for the player's sake I'd prefer not to),
 

However you choose to refer to the speculation and rumour on the QP thread.

[The Spider]

5 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

However you choose to refer to the speculation and rumour on the QP thread.

which you escalated by stupidly pretending that you had no idea what I was referring to when in fact the opposite was true - the more you debate this the more likely you are to achieve the opposite of what you want (or should be wanting) so just let it go fella cause you're only going to hurt your own club if you suceed in winning this particular battle so which is more important to you..............your club or scoring points?

[dirvy]

So, we have a non-disclosure agreement over discussions.

 

How the f*** do daily scumail have this exclusive?

[The Spider]

1 minute ago, dirvy said:

So, we have a non-disclosure agreement over discussions.

 

How the f*** do daily scumail have this exclusive?

I'm guessing it's because someone on the SFA side of the table has leaked it to crank up the pressure on us.....................it's certainly not in our interests for this to be appearing in the public domain, so I can't believe for one second that it came from our side dirvy................what do you think?