The Big Queen's Park FC Thread

[Ben Reilly]

10 minutes ago, Skeletar Spider said:

Out of interest, where are we going to be playing our home games in the coming years?

The Hampden Campus

The impression I got from the meeting was that we are keeping our options open for where exactly within that campus we can play.

 

[baba douche]

4 hours ago, TheHitman said:

I was referring primarily to the sponsorship deal with Haughey’s company ‘City’. Much like Newcastle, with Sports Direct. I personally find it odd when the money a club are paid for sponsorship, comes out of the same ‘pot’ of wealth used to own/fund a club. 

Apart from  a bit of vanity advertising, I can't see what City get out of the deal - it's jot as though an international organisation are going to suddenly swap their contact over because of a name on a strip, and I'm sure Willie isn't going to send a guy out to fix my fridge.

[an86]

14 minutes ago, Ben Reilly said:

The Hampden Campus

The impression I got from the meeting was that we are keeping our options open for where exactly within that campus we can play.

 

I just cannot see Hampden flying in the long term. If we end up in the top flight in the next few years, the scrutiny the SFA will come under for allowing us to gain a huge advantage over opponents in terms of gate receipts won’t stand up.
 

If we’re asked to present a logical reason for playing at Hampden Park, can we actually do it? I don’t mean simply saying “because we’ve done it before.” That’s not a reason. Not wanting to build your actual stadium because you want to cream it in from the one next door is not a valid reason. We should have an idea of what we want to look like and where we want to be by the end of the 2020s. We can’t even really answer that question for next summer. We continue to lay the road down in front of ourselves, whilst attempting to sprint down it at the same time. 

[Ben Reilly]

28 minutes ago, an86 said:

I just cannot see Hampden flying in the long term. If we end up in the top flight in the next few years, the scrutiny the SFA will come under for allowing us to gain a huge advantage over opponents in terms of gate receipts won’t stand up.
 

If we’re asked to present a logical reason for playing at Hampden Park, can we actually do it? I don’t mean simply saying “because we’ve done it before.” That’s not a reason. Not wanting to build your actual stadium because you want to cream it in from the one next door is not a valid reason. We should have an idea of what we want to look like and where we want to be by the end of the 2020s. We can’t even really answer that question for next summer. We continue to lay the road down in front of ourselves, whilst attempting to sprint down it at the same time. 

I would far prefer we had a fit for purpose stadium of our own that would be big enough for top flight football.

However, the problem seems to be that we don't have the resources to build one. I accept that many other clubs would like to improve their stadium too, but can't afford it, so i'm not using our lack of suitable facilities as an argument for why we should be allowed to use Hampden in the long term.

However, if we are willing and able to rent Hampden from the SFA at an appropriate rate then I don't see that as a big problem. It just so happens that we have a facility and a locality that is a useful make weight in any rental agreement that other clubs don't have.

Spitballing an idea. If it ever came to it, to keep a more level playing field (no pun intended) with other clubs, then perhaps our capacity at Hampden could be capped at a similar level to other clubs in our division. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a compromise that could be reached if required?

[spiders4ever]

2 minutes ago, Ben Reilly said:

I would far prefer we had a fit for purpose stadium of our own that would be big enough for top flight football.

However, the problem seems to be that we don't have the resources to build one. I accept that many other clubs would like to improve their stadium too, but can't afford it, so i'm not using our lack of suitable facilities as an argument for why we should be allowed to use Hampden in the long term.

However, if we are willing and able to rent Hampden from the SFA at an appropriate rate then I don't see that as a big problem. It just so happens that we have a facility and a locality that is a useful make weight in any rental agreement that other clubs don't have.

Spitballing an idea. If it ever came to it, to keep a more level playing field (no pun intended) with other clubs, then perhaps our capacity at Hampden could be capped at a similar level to other clubs in our division. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a compromise that could be reached if required?

Perhaps they could do that at Ibrokes and the other one.

[Tangled web]

1 hour ago, Ben Reilly said:

I would far prefer we had a fit for purpose stadium of our own that would be big enough for top flight football.

However, the problem seems to be that we don't have the resources to build one. I accept that many other clubs would like to improve their stadium too, but can't afford it, so i'm not using our lack of suitable facilities as an argument for why we should be allowed to use Hampden in the long term.

However, if we are willing and able to rent Hampden from the SFA at an appropriate rate then I don't see that as a big problem. It just so happens that we have a facility and a locality that is a useful make weight in any rental agreement that other clubs don't have.

Spitballing an idea. If it ever came to it, to keep a more level playing field (no pun intended) with other clubs, then perhaps our capacity at Hampden could be capped at a similar level to other clubs in our division. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a compromise that could be reached if required?

Scottish football needs all the revenue it can get. It would be crazy to turn away custom. It would not be difficult to come to an agreement with the SFA whereby they take all of the "excess income" as part of the rent 

[Ben Reilly]

1 hour ago, Tangled web said:

Scottish football needs all the revenue it can get. It would be crazy to turn away custom. It would not be difficult to come to an agreement with the SFA whereby they take all of the "excess income" as part of the rent 

Yeah, thats a better suggestion, which would have the same effect on 'evening out our revenue while not limiting numbers in the stands.

However, it would be a bit of a sickener, after us having to accept a low ball offer from the SFA for our stadium, paying them to rent it back again, to then give them a sizeable portion the revenue generated by us playing there. 

 

And there was me thinking a few years ago that going pro and redeveloping Lesser was going to make things simpler for us going forwards.

[BMG Spider]

On 06/07/2023 at 14:27, EaglesandSpiders said:

I won't be buying the new kit. I knew this would happen. Global kit suppliers (Adidas, Nike etc.) have a small catalogue of kit designs that they force-feed to all the clubs, unless the club is big enough to dictate its own design. I may be interested in the new training gear but definitely not these shirts. 

This. That new home strip is hideous. It shouldn't be possible to f up a simple black and white hooped shirt, but somehow Adidas have managed it. Why on earth did the club not say no, come back with something more in tune with the club. Won't be buying it either.

 

[williebraveheart]

29 minutes ago, BMG Spider said:

This. That new home strip is hideous. It shouldn't be possible to f up a simple black and white hooped shirt, but somehow Adidas have managed it. Why on earth did the club not say no, come back with something more in tune with the club. Won't be buying it either.

 

Me neither. I cannot buy anything with a QP badge which is not a QP shirt. It is just a mess. Perhaps when we wake up the real QP strip will be announced. I hope the fans vote with their wallets.

[ExiledLichtie]

I can't imagine there would be a problem with top flight games at Hampden.  I think the problem that people (including me) would have would be just changing stadiums whenever you felt like it.  If Hampden is your nominated grant and you're lead tenants, then why would there be an issue?

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

On 06/07/2023 at 16:06, Ben Reilly said:

There was a bit of explanation on the reasoning for the hospitality stand. Mainly that, for various reasons, it has potential to bring in more income than we would make from having a stand for 800ish fans at our home games.

Personaly speaking, while so much about the Lesser redevelopment has been very frustrating, having had the bigger picture laid out last night, I am a bit more understanding of, and content with, why things have turned out the way they have.

I was not convinced on the reasoning for the 'Lords Gallery'. The argument given could easily have been met within a larger structure accommodating many more. The west side of the ground is the prime viewing area for the stadium and to limit it's view to just 40 people is ridiculous.

I'm more of the opinion that a return to Hampden was the intention all along with Lesser being a "fall back" plan should things not work out in that regard. The excellent work of the team caused the committee major panic  that forced our hand in the negotiations with the SFA. As a result, we're probably paying over the odds for the rent of Hampden for match days with the horror of us being promoted to the Premiership causing panic in the boardroom..

The sad thing is, we just don't know. I could be very wrong in my interpretation but the lack of information from the club just gives rise to wild theories on why certain action has taken place. The "commercial confidentiality" argument only goes so far.

[Zanetti]

I'm fine with us being back at Hampden permanently if that's what the club really is banking on. It's not ideal for this level of football, but I can accept that over the alternatives.

What concerns me though is the scenario whereby we're negotiating to use it every single year, and the possibility that the SFA may just decide they're not keen on the arrangement anymore. 

As fans we've put up with a lot of uncertainty in recent years, and there needs to be a clearly defined plan for the future, be it a to develop Lesser into something that's actually fit for purpose, or a long term deal to use the big stadium next door.

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

Right, on to playing matters. We're up against Ross County today in a pre-season kick about and it will be good to see how our new squad measures up to Premiership opposition. Tickets are £10.

https://www.rosscountyfootballclub.co.uk/news-items/ross-county-v-queens-park-friendly

 

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

County's season ticket prices are very good for the premier never mind the championship. And for under 18's it's a whopping £60!

Hhmmmm......

[Arachnophile]

So we built the "hospitality stand" because that generates more revenue than a stand with several hundred supporters?

How does that work when, as a result of Lesser's tiny capacity, we can't actually play our games there?

[DA Baracus]

How has this absolute farce with Lesser come about? Who decided on the ridiculous, stupid layout? It's so short sighted and limiting and seems to go against everything else your club is saying.

Is the plan is to use Hampden anyway, what was the point in redeveloping Lesser, especially the ludicrous royal box monstrosity?

[Ben Reilly]

13 hours ago, Grumpy Soo-sider said:

I was not convinced on the reasoning for the 'Lords Gallery'. The argument given could easily have been met within a larger structure accommodating many more. The west side of the ground is the prime viewing area for the stadium and to limit it's view to just 40 people is ridiculous.

I'm more of the opinion that a return to Hampden was the intention all along with Lesser being a "fall back" plan should things not work out in that regard. The excellent work of the team caused the committee major panic  that forced our hand in the negotiations with the SFA. As a result, we're probably paying over the odds for the rent of Hampden for match days with the horror of us being promoted to the Premiership causing panic in the boardroom..

The sad thing is, we just don't know. I could be very wrong in my interpretation but the lack of information from the club just gives rise to wild theories on why certain action has taken place. The "commercial confidentiality" argument only goes so far.

I think you are probably right with a lot of the above, but as you say, we'll probably never know the full story.

[Ben Reilly]

1 hour ago, Arachnophile said:

So we built the "hospitality stand" because that generates more revenue than a stand with several hundred supporters?

How does that work when, as a result of Lesser's tiny capacity, we can't actually play our games there?

While you could undoubtedly make more money from gate receipts on the 20+ match days each season with 800 paying fans than you could with 40 guests, I believe their argument was that the hospitality stand/suite can be used to generate revenue throughout the week by using it for more than just match days.

They also mentioned that it has already helped to suitably impress potential sponsors into putting money into the club. I have no idea of how lucrative that can be on a regular basis so can't say whether it's more financially viable than a stand for more people.

Again, the ideal situation would have been to incorporate the hospitality facilities into a stand that could also seat regular supporters. But if the money wasn't available for that size of build, the decision seems to have been made based on the belief that what we have ended up with is the most profitable option available.

I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, or even that i'm happy with it, just that this is my understanding of why we are where we are.

[Jaggy McJagface]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

How has this absolute farce with Lesser come about? Who decided on the ridiculous, stupid layout? It's so short sighted and limiting and seems to go against everything else your club is saying.

Is the plan is to use Hampden anyway, what was the point in redeveloping Lesser, especially the ludicrous royal box monstrosity?

Haughey funds the redevelopment of the Lesser Hampden complex, after having stumped up £2.5 million to help the SFA buy Hampden outright.

QP then allow the Scotland national team to use Lesser as the new training complex, while the SFA allow QP to use Hampden proper for their league matches. Should QP get promoted, they will absolutely rake it in from 3/4 visits from the uglies per season.

 

it’s a convenient way to solve a lot of the SFA’s problems with Haughey’s money, and also gives QP as potentially huge financial advantage.

I think this was the plan all along, and Lesser was always going to be primarily a training complex for the national team.

[Arachnophile]

22 minutes ago, Ben Reilly said:

While you could undoubtedly make more money from gate receipts on the 20+ match days each season with 800 paying fans than you could with 40 guests, I believe their argument was that the hospitality stand/suite can be used to generate revenue throughout the week by using it for more than just match days.

They also mentioned that it has already helped to suitably impress potential sponsors into putting money into the club. I have no idea of how lucrative that can be on a regular basis so can't say whether it's more financially viable than a stand for more people.

Again, the ideal situation would have been to incorporate the hospitality facilities into a stand that could also seat regular supporters. But if the money wasn't available for that size of build, the decision seems to have been made based on the belief that what we have ended up with is the most profitable option available.

I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, or even that i'm happy with it, just that this is my understanding of why we are where we are.

No argument with you at all. Indeed I am grateful to you for sharing the club's position, something they don't appear to feel any obligation to do with mere supporters.

It's a kind of pointless conversation I guess, as we have established that no one thinks that the hideous pavilion as it has been built is a good idea.

Can't make it to Dingwall today. Interested to see who makes the starting 11.