Queen's Park 2019/20

[The Spider]

19 minutes ago, an86 said:

I don't think it necessarily requires a vote if we have a clear majority in favour of a direction of travel from the other night. 

No, I'm not suggesting that. One of the reasons I became a member is because I saw this debate coming and wanted a say if it came to it. I'm merely stating that I don't believe in the two tier system of members/fans and I think we need to find a way of bridging it or making the membership process less stuffy and old fashioned. 

I'm basically one of those hypocrites who preaches about socialism and then accepts a peerage. I don't believe in it, but I'll do it anyway. 

Ok, let me try again from the unity angle. As you say, one of the reasons you became a member is because you saw this debate coming and wanted a say if it came to it. For this post let's assume that no change in the constitution is required. Members are not better people or bigger supporters of the club than non-members, but the main reason they pay the higher subscription each year is to be able to play a part in major decisions affecting the club by voting on them, including the election of committee members. Putting your political standpoint to one side, how do you think members will feel if such a seismic decision is reached without it being put to a vote, and do you think bypassing that process will help to foster a spirit of unity in the season that followed.

i'm all for non-member fans being afforded every opportunity to express their views on the matter, but i'd like to think that most if not all would accept the principle that like it or not it's a members' club and that's where the decision should be made. Perhaps some non-members could share their views on that aspect?

[an86]

12 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Ok, let me try again from the unity angle. As you say, one of the reasons you became a member is because you saw this debate coming and wanted a say if it came to it. For this post let's assume that no change in the constitution is required. Members are not better people or bigger supporters of the club than non-members, but the main reason they pay the higher subscription each year is to be able to play a part in major decisions affecting the club by voting on them, including the election of committee members. Putting your political standpoint to one side, how do you think members will feel if such a seismic decision is reached without it being put to a vote, and do you think bypassing that process will help to foster a spirit of unity in the season that followed.

i'm all for non-member fans being afforded every opportunity to express their views on the matter, but i'd like to think that most if not all would accept the principle that like it or not it's a members' club and that's where the decision should be made. Perhaps some non-members could share their views on that aspect?

I obviously can't speak for other members. I can only give my own view on the matter. I understand the structure that I signed up for, but I'm not particularly at ease with it. Others will have their own individual views on that.

Members were invited, like everyone else, to have their say the other night. If the views of the membership are starkly opposed to those of non-members, then I'd suggest we have a serious problem, whether it goes to a vote or not. My suspicion is that they are not, but the proof will be in the pudding. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by an86

[The Spider]

1 minute ago, an86 said:

I obviously can't speak for other members. I can only give my own view on the matter. I understand the structure that I signed up for, but I'm not particularly at ease with it. Others will have their own individual views on that.

Members were invited, like everyone else, to have their say the other night. If the views of the membership are starkly opposed to those of non-members, then I'd suggest we have a serious problem, whether it goes to a vote or not. My suspicion is that they are not, but the proof will be in the pudding. 

"Starkly" is taking an extreme view. What would you propose however if 55% of non-members were in favour but 55% of members were against? If this isn't handled properly there is a realistic danger that the process itself will cause more lasting harm than the actual decision, and I'm sure we all agree that whatever the outcome we need to have a unified support in order to prosper. This issue has the potential to become brexitesque and "proroguing" the membership might achieve the majority you would be hoping, for but does the end justify the means?

[an86]

24 minutes ago, The Spider said:

"Starkly" is taking an extreme view. What would you propose however if 55% of non-members were in favour but 55% of members were against? If this isn't handled properly there is a realistic danger that the process itself will cause more lasting harm than the actual decision, and I'm sure we all agree that whatever the outcome we need to have a unified support in order to prosper. This issue has the potential to become brexitesque and "proroguing" the membership might achieve the majority you would be hoping, for but does the end justify the means?

Is a vote absolutely necessary or can the committee, who the membership elected to make decisions, make the decision? I've read conflicting views on this one. 

If there was a clear view in one direction, I don't think there can be an argument against that elected committee taking that view forward, albeit it's a general system that I find to be fundamentally flawed. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by an86

[The man with no name]

48 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Ok, let me try again from the unity angle. As you say, one of the reasons you became a member is because you saw this debate coming and wanted a say if it came to it. For this post let's assume that no change in the constitution is required. Members are not better people or bigger supporters of the club than non-members, but the main reason they pay the higher subscription each year is to be able to play a part in major decisions affecting the club by voting on them, including the election of committee members. Putting your political standpoint to one side, how do you think members will feel if such a seismic decision is reached without it being put to a vote, and do you think bypassing that process will help to foster a spirit of unity in the season that followed.

i'm all for non-member fans being afforded every opportunity to express their views on the matter, but i'd like to think that most if not all would accept the principle that like it or not it's a members' club and that's where the decision should be made. Perhaps some non-members could share their views on that aspect?

It is quite clear you are against professionalism. Guaging the mood of the meeting the other night that is clearly the minority view. If a vote is not necessary and the view is clearly in favour then there shouldn't be one. You can't have the minority dictate to the majority. 

It is good corporate governance to consult with ALL stakeholders and then the Committee should make the decision if that is all that is required. 

[The Spider]

1 minute ago, an86 said:

Is a vote absolutely necessary or can the committee, who the membership elected to make decisions, make the decision? I've read conflicting views on this one.

For me this is the crux of the matter, and to have formally begun the process without providing clarification (particularly when requested to do so) of that aspect shows a lack of respect to the members (whom you quite rightly highlight represent the members).

[Bring Your Own Socks]

5 minutes ago, an86 said:

I obviously can't speak for other members. I can only give my own view on the matter. I understand the structure that I signed up for, but I'm not particularly at ease with it. Others will have their own individual views on that.

Members were invited, like everyone else, to have their say the other night. If the views of the membership are starkly opposed to those of non-members, then I'd suggest we have a serious problem, whether it goes to a vote or not. My suspicion is that they are not, but the proof will be in the pudding. 

This isn't a new topic of conversation. Thursday's meeting was specifically informal, and the subject has been nudged in a couple of previous meetings. And of course it's commonly discussed amongst friends and family. There may be some that need further info but I'd be surprised if less than 80% have already made their mind up. Members having precedence in the level of say is constitutionally right. Like yourself, my politics and belief don't align myself to Committee life but I too joined after 47 years of "not for me" because I could see this coming. I felt a sense of duty that I should at least try and be part of a better future for the club. Frankly, the stadium debacle confirms that Members should be consulted more widely and that the process should be simpler for fans who are genuinely interested beyond a Saturday afternoon.

As for the vote, I've witnessed in AGM a motion being put to the Members by show of hands on more than one occasion and where it was significantly clear one way another it was deemed no ballot required, so the precedent is set, probably way back in 1903. By proxy, the "show of hands" happened on Thursday, surreptitiously. It's also worth noting, as the Immediate Past President likes to remind Members (the all-one-family mantra not quite reaching all corners yet) that the Committee has Full Power over the conduct and affairs of the club. To balance that there is also a mechanism for Members to call an EGM. In any event, I seriously doubt that the Committee would try to bulldoze this through and that's not the signals i've been picking up.

As for the pros and cons. I'm much more interested in the Arbroath model than the Berwick/Shire model. The only sure way to avoid the trapdoor is to be in L1, at least.

[The Spider]

3 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

It is quite clear you are against professionalism. Guaging the mood of the meeting the other night that is clearly the minority view. If a vote is not necessary and the view is clearly in favour then there shouldn't be one. You can't have the minority dictate to the majority. 

It is good corporate governance to consult with ALL stakeholders and then the Committee should make the decision if that is all that is required. 

It may surprise you but i agree in principle with your last sentence, but you will note I have highlighted a rather key word in your post, and until the rules of the game are clarified is there any real point in playing it? IF a members' vote is required, a cynic might take the view that the committee are only paying lip service to non-members, so for everybody's sake shouldn't the Club simply come out and declare its stance on that aspect?

[an86]

2 minutes ago, The Spider said:

For me this is the crux of the matter, and to have formally begun the process without providing clarification (particularly when requested to do so) of that aspect shows a lack of respect to the members (whom you quite rightly highlight represent the members).

The meeting the other night wasn't formal. It was a discussion. Every single member was contacted, every single member was free to attend, and every single member was free to ask that very question. I'm failing to see how anything the club has done has been disrespectful. 

[The Spider]

1 minute ago, an86 said:

The meeting the other night wasn't formal. It was a discussion. Every single member was contacted, every single member was free to attend, and every single member was free to ask that very question. I'm failing to see how anything the club has done has been disrespectful. 

Either you've missed the point or I've explained it badly (or both). As I've already said I did ask that very question (in writing per the secretary's invitation instructions) and haven't had the courtesy of a response. As you should be aware (from historical posts on P&B) the club have previous on that front, and I regard that as disrespectful regardless of whether the question was posed by a member or a pay at the gate supporter all of whom should be treated equally in that regard. You don't?

[an86]

4 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Either you've missed the point or I've explained it badly (or both). As I've already said I did ask that very question (in writing per the secretary's invitation instructions) and haven't had the courtesy of a response. As you should be aware (from historical posts on P&B) the club have previous on that front, and I regard that as disrespectful regardless of whether the question was posed by a member or a pay at the gate supporter all of whom should be treated equally in that regard. You don't?

I take your point on the communication from the club in relation to written queries. It's absolutely terrible. I was speaking in relation to your suggestion that things had formally kicked off, which they haven't. 

[The man with no name]

26 minutes ago, The Spider said:

It may surprise you but i agree in principle with your last sentence, but you will note I have highlighted a rather key word in your post, and until the rules of the game are clarified is there any real point in playing it? IF a members' vote is required, a cynic might take the view that the committee are only paying lip service to non-members, so for everybody's sake shouldn't the Club simply come out and declare its stance on that aspect?

Did you attend the AGM or the meeting the other evening. It is quite clear remaining amateur is the minority view. There was a show of hands at the AGM and the other evening no one, I repeat no one, gave the case for staying amateur. 

It is only a matter of time!

[The Spider]

3 minutes ago, an86 said:

I take your point on the communication from the club in relation to written queries. It's absolutely terrible. I was speaking in relation to your suggestion that things had formally kicked off, which they haven't. 

Cheers. We can agree on that but I'd argue "formal" is open to interpretation. If on the instruction of the President the Secretary convenes a meeting for members and supporters isn't that formal? Moot point, unlike the bigger issue of who is to be entrusted with making this historic decision.

For the avoidance of doubt I am totally on board with the club seeking opinion from members, season ticket holders and pay at the gate supporters alike but until we know whether it's a decision by Committee (or ultimately even the President himself if he has the casting vote) alone or requires approval (by show of hands or a vote) by the members then we all remain in the dark as to how much influence our individual (and collective) views will have on the final outcome. If 80% (for example) of non-members are in favour, but the decision will solely be put to the members then don't non-members have a right to know at this stage too?

[The Spider]

5 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

It is only a matter of time!

As I've previously indicated I suspect that will be the case, but that doesn't mean that due process shouldn't be followed. Why will nobody answer the basic starting point question of whether the Club's constitution requires the members to vote on this issue or not? If the show of hands at the AGM was so in favour, then what do they have to fear by simply answering that question and clearing up any doubt once and for all? Is that really such an unreasonable request, whether I'm in favour of us turning pro or not?

[williebraveheart]

I have enjoyed reading all your posts on this issue. I shall put my cards on the table and say we must change to survive. That, in my opinion is best achieved by turning pro. But everything I read here only reinforces my original view that the management structure of the club must also change to a much more professional and commercially astute model. The current committee system has shown to me that nobody is in control and nobody seems to be accountable. To my mind this decision should already have been made and efforts to maximise it to its full potential well under way. I fear all this "consultation" talk and invitations to meetings to discuss a possible agenda for another meeting is pure window dressing so that someone can say "it wisnae me" if it all goes tits up. As a supporter for over 60 years and a non member for that time I would be quite happy for someone to pick up the ball and run with it whatever direction they decide. Just get on with it.

[Dooflick]

40 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

Did you attend the AGM or the meeting the other evening. It is quite clear remaining amateur is the minority view. There was a show of hands at the AGM and the other evening no one, I repeat no one, gave the case for staying amateur. 

It is only a matter of time!

I did not attend the meeting the other night but I would have thought that under no circumstances would the Committee not ask the Members and the Members only what their opinion was.  Were all the Club's members there on Thursday? After all the members own the Club.

[The man with no name]

15 minutes ago, Dooflick said:

I did not attend the meeting the other night but I would have thought that under no circumstances would the Committee not ask the Members and the Members only what their opinion was.  Were all the Club's members there on Thursday? After all the members own the Club.

Members were asked at the AGM. I believe only 6 said they were against going professional.

[gmca]

4 hours ago, The man with no name said:

Just out of curiousity, what's the Stirling Albion view of the potential drop to the Lowland League?

Are you doing anything to mitigate the risk?

Shitting ourselves is the basic view.

As a fan owned club, we are committed to living within our means as things stand. Like most clubs we'll be looking to maximise our income from sponsorship and other avenues. If the unthinkable happens, there's no reason currently to think that approach would or should change.

[The man with no name]

49 minutes ago, The Spider said:

As I've previously indicated I suspect that will be the case, but that doesn't mean that due process shouldn't be followed. Why will nobody answer the basic starting point question of whether the Club's constitution requires the members to vote on this issue or not? If the show of hands at the AGM was so in favour, then what do they have to fear by simply answering that question and clearing up any doubt once and for all? Is that really such an unreasonable request, whether I'm in favour of us turning pro or not?

So what is the question in any vote. Should the Club sign Professional players? Too late, already done! Should the Club pay players to play? Define "pay"? What article are we changing? I would like to know why a vote is necessary as I don't see that it is.

 

[The Spider]

12 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

So what is the question in any vote. Should the Club sign Professional players? Too late, already done! Should the Club pay players to play? Define "pay"? What article are we changing? I would like to know why a vote is necessary as I don't see that it is.

 

I will try to explain. The club has a set of rules it must abide by called the Articles of Association. Any change to those rules needs to be formally proposed and if a sufficient number of members support the proposal a meeting of all members needs to be called outlining the proposed change and requiring a majority of those present including proxy votes to enable it to pass. i'm not aware that asking for an indicative show of hands without prior warning at an AGM overrides that procedure.

Clause 6.2 of the articles states "To promote the practice and play of football, cricket, lacrosse, lawn tennis, hockey, bowls, cycle riding, running, jumping, gymnastics, and other athletic sports, games,and exercises of every description, and any other games, pastimes, sports, assaultsat-arms, recreations, amusements, or entertainments, and to buy, sell, exchange, or hire all articles, implements, fixtures, furniture, apparatus, and things used in the playing or practice of such games or pursuits, and any other implements or things used or required thereof, or for the promotion of the objects of the Club, including prizes to be given in any competition or competitions promoted by the Club, and for that purpose to establish and maintain amateur teams of football, and other players."

The key part is the bit I've put in bold. Some might argue it's contextual, but you would need to consider what the intent was when it was originally written. You will note that it's been changed over the years, with the "and other players" bit added to get round the loanees issue. I'm not a lawyer (perhaps someone reading this is and can offer (free!) opinion), but on the basis of the above I think the Committee would be foolhardy to even attempt to make such a momentous change without following due process.

I can understand why some (and potentially a large majority) of supporters want this to go through, but it's genuinely concerning that they appear to be prepared to ignore the designated procedure in order to achieve it.