The Big Queen's Park FC Thread

[HoBNob]

18 minutes ago, Zanetti said:

I'm not sure if you maybe have short term memory loss, but the post I quoted (which you wrote) referred to him as our "owner" twice.

Some going that, I only said the word "owner" once in the post! 

I referred you as a rich owners (plural) plaything, that was primarily aimed at the decision to bin off an 800 seater stand for a hospitality stand. I don't know who it is that calls the shots with regards to that but it didn't come across as the decision of a group who had the common Queens Park fan at heart. 

I named Haughey twice right enough in response to the post where Hampden Diehard had referred to him as the man putting the cash in, the second time was referencing his ties to Hampden. He put cash into the SFA a few years back for it did he not? So you'd presume he'd help with getting favourable rent conditions for using it? 

 

[Nightmare]

16 minutes ago, Mission said:

 I could be dead tomorrow, who cares if it goes txxts up.

If it goes tits up, you might not have a club left at the end of the day. Which is why you should probably care a bit more about what’s going on than you seem to.

[Hampden Diehard]

1 hour ago, HoBNob said:

What action are you going to take when Haughey fucks off? Start thinking that way because that's inevitable, whether it's ten years, whether it's twenty, what action do you take then? 

Calm yourself down; you'll do yourself an injury. Where will your team be in ten or twenty years?  If you know the future ,there's a place for you on every football board in Scotland. We'll roll with the punches, as every team does.

[Spider Rico]

Any sign of Robin Veldman there yesterday? Noticed from the highlights and photos he didn’t appear to be in the dug out 

[Hampden Diehard]

Concern for our welfare is very comforting. No one, though, was supporting us and urging their club representatives to give us a square deal when the SFA was shafting us over the enforced sale of Hampden.

[Hampden Diehard]

3 minutes ago, Spider Rico said:

Any sign of Robin Veldman there yesterday? Noticed from the highlights and photos he didn’t appear to be in the dug out 

Even when he's not noticeable, we win! What will we be like when he is there!!!!!

[Spiders For Life]

22 minutes ago, HoBNob said:

Some going that, I only said the word "owner" once in the post! 

I referred you as a rich owners (plural) plaything, that was primarily aimed at the decision to bin off an 800 seater stand for a hospitality stand. I don't know who it is that calls the shots with regards to that but it didn't come across as the decision of a group who had the common Queens Park fan at heart. 

I named Haughey twice right enough in response to the post where Hampden Diehard had referred to him as the man putting the cash in, the second time was referencing his ties to Hampden. He put cash into the SFA a few years back for it did he not? So you'd presume he'd help with getting favourable rent conditions for using it? 

 

I mean you definitely referenced our ‘owner’ twice but that’s irrelevant as we already know what you said is wrong. 
 

It is interesting the amount of other teams fans who are so passionate about our sustainability from 2030 onwards. Plenty of work to be done to get us to that point but the intent is there.

I have numerous issues about what’s happened to date, but I’m glad Queen’s are trying to do something different with Beuker’s approach. Whether this all works in a decade who knows but I’d argue there’s very few clubs in Scotland doing more thinking about how the club will be operating in 10 years than we are.

[Arachnophile]

1 minute ago, Spiders For Life said:

I mean you definitely referenced our ‘owner’ twice but that’s irrelevant as we already know what you said is wrong. 
 

It is interesting the amount of other teams fans who are so passionate about our sustainability from 2030 onwards. Plenty of work to be done to get us to that point but the intent is there.

I have numerous issues about what’s happened to date, but I’m glad Queen’s are trying to do something different with Beuker’s approach. Whether this all works in a decade who knows but I’d argue there’s very few clubs in Scotland doing more thinking about how the club will be operating in 10 years than we are.

But, but ,but.... Gretna.

[HoBNob]

7 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Calm yourself down; you'll do yourself an injury. Where will your team be in ten or twenty years?  If you know the future ,there's a place for you on every football board in Scotland. We'll roll with the punches, as every team does.

Still around hopefully, we've had ourselves a shite owner who nearly killed the club in pursuit of some short term success, we were fortunate to survive. 

[an86]

26 minutes ago, Mission said:

I remember walking back home in 1974 after a 0-0 draw with East Fife on a wet Tuesday night. At the time I didn't have enough pocket money to get the train. Who cares if what we are doing is sustainable in 10, 20 years' time. Plenty of teams have disappeared from the league in recent years.

I am enjoying the ride, it's way better than shuffling about league two for years on end. I even have enough money for the train home these days. I could be dead tomorrow, who cares if it goes txxts up. Enjoy the ride.

There are very few folk who don’t remember us being rotten at some stage. I would quite like to have a team to support as long as I’m living, though. Also, if I did shuffle off tomorrow, I’d quite like my mates to still have a team to support in my absence. Short-sightedness got us into the mess that saw us out of turfed out of Hampden in the first place. It’s possible to both enjoy the present, on the pitch, but also have serious and legitimate questions to ask about the long term. 

[Mission]

I was trying to make the point ( Badly ) that we were going to be in trouble if we had not moved on from being amateur and not had the rich guys' money. Of course, I care about the long-term sustainability of the club. I just feel we could do with less complaining and more enjoying how far we have come. I have been involved in business all my life and it is easy to shoot arrows from the outside when you are not directly involved on the inside. Yes, I agree that the club has been poor with communications but I fear that the reality is they don't see the current 500-odd supporters as important as we would like to think we are. They have a bigger vision of attracting families and young fans from the large catchment area in the south of Glasgow. We might not like it but maybe our buy-in does not matter to them. So, my plan is to enjoy the ride as much as I can.

[Zanetti]

27 minutes ago, an86 said:

There are very few folk who don’t remember us being rotten at some stage. I would quite like to have a team to support as long as I’m living, though. Also, if I did shuffle off tomorrow, I’d quite like my mates to still have a team to support in my absence. Short-sightedness got us into the mess that saw us out of turfed out of Hampden in the first place. It’s possible to both enjoy the present, on the pitch, but also have serious and legitimate questions to ask about the long term. 

I agree with this, but the suggestion that there "hasn't been a peep" from our supporters about what's going on behind the scenes, which sparked this discussion, is laughable.

You could flick to any page in this thread and likely find multiple posts from people moaning about something the club has or hasn't done. In fact, I'm not sure there's a fanbase in country that has had more to complain about (and has absolutely voiced those complaints) than us in recent years.

 

[ExiledLichtie]

2 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Your club is better than most but you do have a number of local guys putting money in. And good luck to you for that. You're not doing what you're doing on gate receipts alone; you are well run with decent sponsors. You have a number of people supporting you financially. And, as I say, good luck to you.

"but you do have a number of local guys putting money in."

Go on?  We have sponsors, hospitality, contests, but we are not dependent on anyone.  There isn't some multimillionaire funneling money in.  I keep hearing other fans say that its not sustainable to run a club in Scotland without a wealthy benefactor, but that just isn't true.   

[PauloPerth]

46 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Concern for our welfare is very comforting. No one, though, was supporting us and urging their club representatives to give us a square deal when the SFA was shafting us over the enforced sale of Hampden.

I think a lot of the stuff from fans of diddy clubs towards QP on here is petty jealousy. Why shouldn’t Queens Park spend the money they’ve made from selling Hampden to push on? Had the chance to build a brilliant wee compact ground but looked to have absolutely fucked that up, but that’s been covered.

But in what way were Queens Park shafted in the sale? You think it’s up to the governing body to indefinitely subsidise QP and pay for their ground’s upkeep when other clubs have to pay their own way?

Queens Park could have said no to the deal.

[EaglesandSpiders]

I haven't spent a single second reading let alone post something on another team's thread here and I find it fascinating how some people are more "interested" in the future of QP than, you know, QP fans. 

[bridgeofweirdo]

50 minutes ago, an86 said:

I remember walking back home in 1974 after a 0-0 draw with East Fife on a wet Tuesday night

Jeez I hope it was a home game....

[Fae_the_'briggs]

10 minutes ago, bridgeofweirdo said:

Jeez I hope it was a home game....

Well done that person, made me chuckle anyway. 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, Mission said:

I have never read so much moaning from our own supporters and those of other teams. 

Ok, there are problems. But....We are in the championship, we are back playing at Hampden, we have an excellent management and coaching team as well as first-class training facilities. Oh, and we are quoted as 2nd favourites to win the league.

I remember walking back home in 1974 after a 0-0 draw with East Fife on a wet Tuesday night. At the time I didn't have enough pocket money to get the train. Who cares if what we are doing is sustainable in 10, 20 years' time. Plenty of teams have disappeared from the league in recent years.

I am enjoying the ride, it's way better than shuffling about league two for years on end. I even have enough money for the train home these days. I could be dead tomorrow, who cares if it goes txxts up. Enjoy the ride.

As mentioned previously, many times, the playing side is exciting. Like many, including the majority of Members at the meeting, your comment is about the football and the EGM was about the business of the Limited company. 

Whilst the football activity is storming ahead to a new future. The Limited company is still tethered to 1903 and run by people who say things like “things are run conservatively with a small ‘c’.

What has caused disconcert amongst a section of Members was that fifteen of them requested an EGM to address concerns about how the committee were re-electing office bearers and committee members  without following the written protocols, effectively closing opportunities for injecting new blood. This has happened over 3 years. They applied in writing detailing the objectives and complied with all the requirements.

Subsequently, the Company Secretary, who also happens to be one of the office bearers of the committee and a registered director of the Limited company, issued a notice that an EGM was to be held but the business was only regarding votes to change the Articles of Amendment on two articles relating to date changes. The Members items were ignored and excluded. 

At the EGM, the President formally opened the meeting, read the two motions and despite voting sheets being issued on arrival simply asked if there was anyone in attendance who was against the motions. Nobody spoke, yay or nay, and the President immediately confirmed both votes were carried unanimously and that the Articles would be changed and then he formally closed the EGM. The whole event took 2 minutes.

All the other issues mentioned here were therefore reduced to an unrecorded open conversation with no minutes or actions. Naturally, the spokesperson for the group stood up and delivered to the Members the four items for discussion as requested but as the Committee had already seen them they launched into prepared responses, completely ignoring the spokespersons request to not focus on individuals but to consider the bigger picture that the constitution needed updated.

So, the role and the purpose of Members is still not clear. Treated with contempt and a devious tactic, it seems that the only need for Members is to keep turning a blind eye to the passive dictatorship and turn up to vote for what you are told to, even when a vote isn’t actually done.

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

2 hours ago, HoBNob said:

Some going that, I only said the word "owner" once in the post! 

I referred you as a rich owners (plural) plaything, that was primarily aimed at the decision to bin off an 800 seater stand for a hospitality stand. I don't know who it is that calls the shots with regards to that but it didn't come across as the decision of a group who had the common Queens Park fan at heart. 

I named Haughey twice right enough in response to the post where Hampden Diehard had referred to him as the man putting the cash in, the second time was referencing his ties to Hampden. He put cash into the SFA a few years back for it did he not? So you'd presume he'd help with getting favourable rent conditions for using it? 

 

lol

... a rich owners plaything. 

... ....

... when they're owner leaves (sic)

 

Carry on.

 

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

59 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I think a lot of the stuff from fans of diddy clubs towards QP on here is petty jealousy. Why shouldn’t Queens Park spend the money they’ve made from selling Hampden to push on? Had the chance to build a brilliant wee compact ground but looked to have absolutely fucked that up, but that’s been covered.

But in what way were Queens Park shafted in the sale? You think it’s up to the governing body to indefinitely subsidise QP and pay for their ground’s upkeep when other clubs have to pay their own way?

Queens Park could have said no to the deal.

£5m for Hampden is not a good deal in anyone's books. QP were indeed shafted by the SFA. 

Sure, we could have said no to the deal, and died as a club. 

The truth of the matter was accept the deal or go out of business. We chose the red pill.