Queen's Park 2019/20

[The man with no name]

1 hour ago, Dooflick said:

The proxy votes worry me as well. It is only a couple of years ago that we had a vote for the position of President when two former Presidents stood against one another. One of them was still on the Committee and the other one had retired a few years ago. The one not on the Committee sent out a letter stating what his aims were, one of which was that he would, if elected, immediately start talking to the SFA regarding a new deal as he felt that the club had missed the opportunity to do so when they had agreed to give the SFA an extra six months on the current deal, two months after he had retired. The committee sent out a letter to the members in reply ,signed by the then President and Treasurer, urging members to vote for the member who was still on the Committee as they had everything in hand, and look how things have turned out!!!  I understand from talking to the one who had retired, that on asking the club  privately as to how the voting went it turned out that more people in the hall that evening had voted for him but the Committee had secured enough proxy votes from members who did not attend matches and were all for the status quo and did not want to rock the boat. It is a big worry, and I am  hoping that these proxy voters will not stop this club from  from doing the right thing with regards to our future. Let us hope that whatever letter goes out for this EGM, which as a season ticket holder I will not be able to attend,will be enough to to get the 75% required for us to go upward and onward.

I wouldn't worry about the past. Whoever had won the Presidential election wouldn't have stopped the sale of Hampden. The Club were shafted by it's own Committee of 20 years ago. The SFA knew exactly what they were doing and nothing could have stopped it.

This is about the future and making sure we have one. Do we want SPFL and a Youth System or the obscurity of the Lowland League or lower. Hampden Diehard is spot on!

[an86]

56 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

We're fecked if we go down; dead simple - in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be interested in even entertaining the idea of professionalism if the situation were otherwise.

This is it in a nutshell. I've been an advocate of going pro, but if there was no pyramid and Hampden was going to be our home, I'd actually have been completely against it. 

Nobody can take away a rich history, but we need to look at the future with a clear head. Changing is the only way we can survive. 

The highs, the lows, the getting bevvied on the bus, the same faces, the same familiar shouts from the same voices you've heard for years, the robust debates over daft shite that ultimately doesn't matter in the scheme of things. That's the essence of the game and the stuff that makes it for me. That won't die, as long as there is a team wearing black and white on a bit of grass or AstroTurf in front of us. 

[The Spider]

34 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

I wouldn't get too hung up on financial projections. The treasurer could rattle up something in five minutes and it wouldn't be worth the fag packet it was written on if we are relegated. All you need to know is that if we get sucked into the vortex of the Lowland League, we will struggle to recover our position, stature and financial-wise. Income there will be less (lower gate receipts and SFA / SPFL grants) and costs (e.g. match balls and officials have to be paid for whilst they don't have to be in the SPFL) may well go up.

There is no financial case here that really needs to be considered; that's not the issue. Queen's have cut their cloth accordingly for 152 years and I'm sure they'd continue to do so, whatever the outcome. The issue is saving ourselves from relegation. We're fecked if we go down; dead simple - in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be interested in even entertaining the idea of professionalism if the situation were otherwise.

That's good advice HD and especially given your own struggles with this issue they are not words that I take lightly. The basic theory is simple - that by going professional we will attract a higher standard of player and give us a better chance of avoiding the armageddon of the Lowland League. I absolutely get that, which is why I'm prepared to consider ditching my personal preferences for the overall good.

I can't speak for others in the "undecided" camp, but to enable me to take that final step I require an understanding of where the funds to meet the additional expenditure will come from, and as someone who is more than familiar with "juggling pounds, shillings and pence" yourself then surely you can appreciate the need for that aspect to be satisfactorily explained? In simple terms most items of current expenditure will remain unaffected by a change, so unless I'm missing something obvious you are just looking at increased wageroll (in excess of current expenses payments) as well as increased insurance costs, in particular the need to for additional Employers Liability and Personal Accident cover.

So yes it would all be worthless if we were relegated, but nonetheless I think it's very important that The Treasurer does share his projection with the members, and then in turn how he intends to cover that deficit with increased revenue, or more other likely other cost savings. You righly point out that we have cut our cloth accordingly for all those years, but this is an entirely different ball game.

We have all seen other clubs struggle to balance the books because income they had counted on never materialised. For example, will our new business model depend on compensation for youth players, and if so then is it envisaged that that such future income will fall short of or exceed the increased wageroll? Will our manager be handed a budget to dabble in the transfer market, and if so where will that extra money come from?

If I was to hazard a guess at where we ar right now then it would be that the members fall into three camps. The biggest number will comprise those who have already decided that turning professional is the way to go (either through personal preference or having been convinced of the need to do so), but I suspect that number would fall short of the necessary 75%. Then there are those who are firmly against such a change, and who would vote against it purely as a matter of principle, but i suspect that number falls short of the necessary 25% to defeat the impending motion.

If I'm therefore reading that situation correctly, that means the future of our club may lie in the hands of those who are presently undecided and awaiting more information to help them make an informed rather than speculative choice. So if that's indeed the case, then what should the President & Committee do to get them onside? Align themselves with TMWNM and simply demand that they do the right thing. Not convinced that strategy would work to be honest.

How about Gerry simply tells us to trust him as he knows best about this sort of thing? Well Gerry is indeed a charming and convincing individual (as I can personally attest to having interviewed him in his home many years ago), but he is also unfortunate to carry the baggage of being the first President in our history to have played professional football, and not everyone he needs to convince were happy with the circumstances that led to his entitlement to currently occupy that position. Boris previously commented that he reckoned Gerry was taking a gamble, and if blind faith is actually Gerry's strategy then I'd now have to concede that Boris is correct in his assessment.

So to go back to your original point HD, whether it's written on the back of a fag packet or otherwise some people do take comfort from seeing some numbers to provide substance to claims being made, and if that's what it takes to get those in the undecided camp into the "for" camp, then I'd urge The Treasurer to make the most of the five minutes of his time that you generously allocated to him for this task.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Spfl clubs don't pay for Public Liability, employee liability and accident cover

[Cowden Cowboy]

People have to live in the real world. Anyone who thinks the Club can produce 2 business plans, one called professional, one called amateur is deluded! It's impossible. Football income and expenditure is based on so many different scenarios. Where you finish in the league for example. If we finish top or are promoted via the play-offs  then our income will be greater than it is if we finish bottom and are relegated to the Lowland League. Most football clubs run on an annual basis - the current year. Jim Duffy wasn't told his playing budget for this season until 2 days before Dumbarton's first game! The biggest financial concern our Club has is the loss of £330,000 per annum. We have to address that! Having spoken to Committee Members about this, the Club have not come up with a viable solution to do this while staying amateur. That is after NO Youth programme, NO Community programme. The Club can't be sustained staying amateur and that is maintaining our league status! If we drop to the Lowland League then it's financial armegedon. No one is saying Professionalism is anymore viable but it does allow the Club to retain its Youth programme and the opportunity to get vital compensation for the great young players we produce and walk out the door for nothing!
This shouldn't be about amateur v professional. It should be about what Club do we want for the future. One that will have no Youth system, No Community sole, be 11 players playing for the jersey (torn, worn-out, faded as we can't replace them) in whatever league we can or about an SPFL team with exciting young talent we produce and who go on to play at the highest level. A place where fans are proud to go to and know that Queen's Park are still relevant and an alternative to watching the Old Firm and all the off-field nonsense that surrounds them.
Your Club needs all Members and supporters to help it survive and be relevant in the future! Do the right thing!

Do members currently view the club's detailed financial plans and projections? If not then surely for members all that is needed and expected is an overview of the key income and cost assumptions and variances in the pro model as compared to the existing amateur scenario.

[spiders4ever]

12 hours ago, houstonspider said:

12 hours ago, Mick1867 said:

Well one person was overheard commenting at a recent match that he didn't care if we ended up playing on a gravel pitch, as long as we stay amateur.
This is the sort of attitude we are sadly dealing with ( and when did any team last play on a gravel pitch anyway? )

Watched by 10 people and a couple of dogs, with the odd jaickie swinging by.

Enough about Clyde

[Hampden Diehard]

Spfl clubs don't pay for Public Liability, employee liability and accident cover

Is this paid by the SPFL?

[Bring Your Own Socks]

My take from last night is that the Members will be asked to change the Articles to allow professionalism.

That's exactly what it is and I'd imagine will be the question that is voted on.

Of course, if a new Article is created, it'll still be covered by the overriding article that states the Committee have ultimate power and decision-making over club matters without recourse. Perhaps TMWNN will recognise this article alone was the mechanism that allowed the Committee of 20 years ago to get it so wrong. Some might even reflect it was the mechanism that limited the challenge over the sale of Hampden. Whatever way you look at that it was a very poor outcome.

To which the response will no doubt be "join the committee, make a difference". As Dooflick has reminded us, not that simple. I for one see the committee as a closed-shop institution, not a blue-sky-thinking business unit.

As for the proxy vote; that's fairly easy to estimate. There is historical and existing data to make a reasonable assessment of that risk. How many members do we have? How many proxy votes were taken as a percentage for Last 3 AGM votes? This info could be released for those concerned to assess the potential impact. It's a reasonable concern and the issue of avoiding the school holiday break is very important. Like postal votes in political elections, it's fair to assume that most proxy votes would be from members either too ill or frail to attend or perhaps living well outwith the area and both of these groups are most likely to have an emotional attachment rather than the realism gripping those who not only follow QP at games but also have a wider grasp of how Scottish lower league football is evolving.

[The man with no name]

10 hours ago, The Spider said:

That's good advice HD and especially given your own struggles with this issue they are not words that I take lightly. The basic theory is simple - that by going professional we will attract a higher standard of player and give us a better chance of avoiding the armageddon of the Lowland League. I absolutely get that, which is why I'm prepared to consider ditching my personal preferences for the overall good.

I can't speak for others in the "undecided" camp, but to enable me to take that final step I require an understanding of where the funds to meet the additional expenditure will come from, and as someone who is more than familiar with "juggling pounds, shillings and pence" yourself then surely you can appreciate the need for that aspect to be satisfactorily explained? In simple terms most items of current expenditure will remain unaffected by a change, so unless I'm missing something obvious you are just looking at increased wageroll (in excess of current expenses payments) as well as increased insurance costs, in particular the need to for additional Employers Liability and Personal Accident cover.

So yes it would all be worthless if we were relegated, but nonetheless I think it's very important that The Treasurer does share his projection with the members, and then in turn how he intends to cover that deficit with increased revenue, or more other likely other cost savings. You righly point out that we have cut our cloth accordingly for all those years, but this is an entirely different ball game.

We have all seen other clubs struggle to balance the books because income they had counted on never materialised. For example, will our new business model depend on compensation for youth players, and if so then is it envisaged that that such future income will fall short of or exceed the increased wageroll? Will our manager be handed a budget to dabble in the transfer market, and if so where will that extra money come from?

If I was to hazard a guess at where we ar right now then it would be that the members fall into three camps. The biggest number will comprise those who have already decided that turning professional is the way to go (either through personal preference or having been convinced of the need to do so), but I suspect that number would fall short of the necessary 75%. Then there are those who are firmly against such a change, and who would vote against it purely as a matter of principle, but i suspect that number falls short of the necessary 25% to defeat the impending motion.

If I'm therefore reading that situation correctly, that means the future of our club may lie in the hands of those who are presently undecided and awaiting more information to help them make an informed rather than speculative choice. So if that's indeed the case, then what should the President & Committee do to get them onside? Align themselves with TMWNM and simply demand that they do the right thing. Not convinced that strategy would work to be honest.

How about Gerry simply tells us to trust him as he knows best about this sort of thing? Well Gerry is indeed a charming and convincing individual (as I can personally attest to having interviewed him in his home many years ago), but he is also unfortunate to carry the baggage of being the first President in our history to have played professional football, and not everyone he needs to convince were happy with the circumstances that led to his entitlement to currently occupy that position. Boris previously commented that he reckoned Gerry was taking a gamble, and if blind faith is actually Gerry's strategy then I'd now have to concede that Boris is correct in his assessment.

So to go back to your original point HD, whether it's written on the back of a fag packet or otherwise some people do take comfort from seeing some numbers to provide substance to claims being made, and if that's what it takes to get those in the undecided camp into the "for" camp, then I'd urge The Treasurer to make the most of the five minutes of his time that you generously allocated to him for this task.

I would ask Members to have a look at their last set of accounts. Look at the cash at bank figure. Now granted that some of that is ring-fenced for future expenditure but we still have a reasonable some to start the process of offering professional contracts to Youth players. This investment is what will generate your future funds for a player budget. That budget will be dependent on excess funds left after expenditure has been met. This will fluctuate based on how many youths go elsewhere and also where you finish in the league, sponsorship, hospitality etc. The player budget is excess of funds over expenditure. That way you minimise risk to the Club. It is that simple but something that can't be planned or budgeted for given the unknown variables. The main thing is your player budget is the excess cash to mitigate risk!

Edited September 20, 2019 by The man with no name

[Cowden Cowboy]

Is this paid by the SPFL?

Yes arranged and paid for by SPFL for all 42 clubs via a block agreement.

[The Spider]

29 minutes ago, The man with no name said:

I would ask Members to have a look at their last set of accounts. Look at the cash at bank figure. Now granted that some of that is ring-fenced for future expenditure but we still have a reasonable some to start the process of offering professional contracts to Youth players. This investment is what will generate your future funds for a player budget. That budget will be dependent on excess funds left after expenditure has been met. This will fluctuate based on how many youths go elsewhere and also where you finish in the league, sponsorship, hospitality etc. The player budget is excess of funds over expenditure. That way you minimise risk to the Club. It is that simple but something that can't be planned or budgeted for given the unknown variables. The main thing is your player budget is the excess cash to mitigate risk!

Using cash surplus to invest for the future can be a wise strategy if done properly, but only provided its operated within a prudent fiscal policy where the business model doesn't overly gamble on an unquantifiable dependency on compensation/transfer fees. So the above is very much in line with improving the player squad to remain within the senior league structure, and if it is that simple then all we need to see is a sample model to see just how much of our cash reserves will be used to fund the start-up, and how long subsidies are likely to continue before replenishment takes place.

Having an indication of those numbers v a projection on an amateur business (decreased costs with no potential compensation income) will enable those in the undecided camp to make a knowledge-based decision, and reduce the extent of the leap of faith factor.

[The Spider]

 

2 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

11 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Spfl clubs don't pay for Public Liability, employee liability and accident cover

Is this paid by the SPFL?

 

5 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Yes arranged and paid for by SPFL for all 42 clubs via a block agreement.

Very intrigued by that CC as it's contrary to information I'd previously received so will need to do a bit more research on that! Just to clarify then, are you suggesting that if QP go professional and significantly (in proportionate terms) increase our EL wagebill and in turn the amount of PA cover needed to protect player's income, then there is no increased cost to QPFC?

If so, does that mean that when Celtic and Rangers increase their wage-bill by millions as both have done this summer, that they too face no increased insurance cost in which case the league either have a unique insurance scheme where underwriters take on increased risk at no additional premium, or that any increased premium is borne by the spfl which effectively means it is paid for by all 42 clubs?

[Cowden Cowboy]

Using cash surplus to invest for the future can be a wise strategy if done properly, but only provided its operated within a prudent fiscal policy where the business model doesn't overly gamble on an unquantifiable dependency on compensation/transfer fees. So the above is very much in line with improving the player squad to remain within the senior league structure, and if it is that simple then all we need to see is a sample model to see just how much of our cash reserves will be used to fund the start-up, and how long subsidies are likely to continue before replenishment takes place.
Having an indication of those numbers v a projection on an amateur business (decreased costs with no potential compensation income) will enable those in the undecided camp to make a knowledge-based decision, and reduce the extent of the leap of faith factor.

Seems a very odd model to have any compensation income factored in. There will be a hefty increase in the club wages bill and the move away from Hampden will reduce the attraction of Queens for young players and also other older players. Very few clubs will pay compensation but you end up with some protection in retaining players until they are 23 - those players you lose for nothing can thus be retained for longer but it would be very exceptional in all likelihood to get much in terms of fees/compensation.

[The Spider]

7 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Seems a very odd model to have any compensation income factored in. There will be a hefty increase in the club wages bill and the move away from Hampden will reduce the attraction of Queens for young players and also other older players. Very few clubs will pay compensation but you end up with some protection in retaining players until they are 23 - those players you lose for nothing can thus be retained for longer but it would be very exceptional in all likelihood to get much in terms of fees/compensation.

i share your concern about the business model, which is why I'd like to see a business model to help me reach the right decision for the club's long term future. At the moment we only have theoretical business models being touted, and there seems to either be a reluctance or a difficulty in members being presented with one for scrutiny, but hopefully that will change before we get to the EGM vote. We cannot afford to get this decision wrong, and as I and others have highlighted the biggest danger lies in insufficient information being disclosed in advance of the meeting, thereby leaving some members to cast proxy votes based on personal preference rather than knowledge and judgement.

However your point about the move away from Hampden reducing the attraction of Queens for young players and also other older players could be partially offset by turning professional, so overall we are damned if we do and damned if we don't I'm afraid, and face an uncertain future whichever route we go down.

[an86]

It was touched on the other night, but we're also pissing away money if we decide not to turn pro. Thomson is away at the end of December. Absolutely no question. Why bother with a youth system if we're getting absolutely zero benefit at first team level or financially? We're just spending money to produce good players for other clubs and getting nothing back. 

[NathanQP]

It was touched on the other night, but we're also pissing away money if we decide not to turn pro. Thomson is away at the end of December. Absolutely no question. Why bother with a youth system if we're getting absolutely zero benefit at first team level or financially? We're just spending money to produce good players for other clubs and getting nothing back. 

This. 100 times this!

[Cowden Cowboy]

This. 100 times this!

So in effect doesn't most of the money used to pay for youth set up just then disappear into paying 1st team wages - the same as most other lower league clubs.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, an86 said:

We're just spending money to produce good players for other clubs and getting nothing back. 

I understand what you are getting at and share your frustration, but to say we are getting "nothing" back is rather dismissive of the contribution Regan has made, and will continue to make, to our first team for as long as he is with us.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

So in effect doesn't most of the money used to pay for youth set up just then disappear into paying 1st team wages - the same as most other lower league clubs.

Partly true (which is why we need to understand the financing behind the professional model that continues to retain the youth system), but paying wages to youth players once they attain the right age would undoubtedly help retain them wouldn't it, so I'd hardly call that 'disappearing' when there's a benefit to the first team as well as qualification for compensation? Whether the potential compensation exceeds the additional expenditure or not should be an important factor in any long term strategy though, otherwise there's a sad inevitability to that model too.

[The man with no name]

2 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Seems a very odd model to have any compensation income factored in. There will be a hefty increase in the club wages bill and the move away from Hampden will reduce the attraction of Queens for young players and also other older players. Very few clubs will pay compensation but you end up with some protection in retaining players until they are 23 - those players you lose for nothing can thus be retained for longer but it would be very exceptional in all likelihood to get much in terms of fees/compensation.

There is this misconception that turning professional is going to cost the Club loads in wages. It simply isn't true!!!!

To gain compensation all we have to do is offer a player a professional contract. If we offer part-time contracts on minimum wage we are committing the Club to about £50-£70 per week per player! If a player is being offered a full time contract elsewhere and he signs it, the club concerned has to pay us compensation. If not we have that young talented lad for up to 3 seasons if we give the maximum 3 year deal at minimum wage. It is a no brainer, proper compensation or a talented boy for 3 years at minimum financial commitment. It amazes me that people need business plans and projections to figure out that's a good deal!!!!