The Big Queen's Park FC Thread

[Spider1975]

Listened to the latest and, as always excellent, Spider's Talk chaps this morning coming back from work and can only echo what Enzo said; it's ludicrous that after so many years of a nomadic nature around various Scottish football grounds, we are still no further forward in having what would be even close to being a permanent 'home'.  

As others have referenced, to be constantly supporting a team which seems to be in a perpetual state of uncertainty with seemingly no plan and no worthwhile communication to its support, I'm wondering when, if ever, we get to a point of saying enough is enough?  If our Leadership Team feel hell bent on bending over whenever the SFA/Rangers/Celtic U-16's demand it, or if our Committee/Leadership Team fail to carry out due diligence on club projects and agreements and if, as it seems, Haughey's millions are all that is required to keep the club afloat, then perhaps we, the support, are superfluous to requirements, if not just a nuisance or irrelevance to the Committee.

Maybe it's time to treat the contents of the Royal Box to a view of an empty main/only stand at Lesser for a while.

Edited July 30 by Spider1975

[spiders4ever]

1 hour ago, Spider1975 said:

Listened to the latest and, as always excellent, Spider's Talk chaps this morning coming back from work and can only echo what Enzo said; it's ludicrous that after so many years of a nomadic nature around various Scottish football grounds, we are still no further forward in having what would be even close to being a permanent 'home'.  

As others have referenced, to be constantly supporting a team which seems to be in a perpetual state of uncertainty with seemingly no plan and no worthwhile communication to its support, I'm wondering when, if ever, we get to a point of saying enough is enough?  If our Leadership Team feel hell bent on bending over whenever the SFA/Rangers/Celtic U-16's demand it, or if our Committee/Leadership Team fail to carry out due diligence on club projects and agreements and if, as it seems, Haughey's millions are all that is required to keep the club afloat, then perhaps we, the support, are superfluous to requirements, if not just a nuisance or irrelevance to the Committee.

Maybe it's time to treat the contents of the Royal Box to a view of an empty main/only stand at Lesser for a while.

Agree with most of this but not the last paragraph. I support the team not the hierarchy. Due you honestly think that they'd care if the crowds halved? I don't. I really struggle to understand how they have managed to cockup the development of Lesser so badly. Why did they decide to restrict the capacity to about 1000? That was a conscious decision so what was the reason?

[Spider1975]

13 minutes ago, spiders4ever said:

Due you honestly think that they'd care if the crowds halved?

That's my point, I don't think they would and I don't think they, (the club, rather than the team) need the [financial] support, but it'd be an interesting experiment.,

Lesser is a disaster with no percievable plan to make it even vaguely fit for purpose and the club, if not on a playing level, then most definitely administratively, seem to go from cock up to cock up, with no hint of penalty when they do so.

Have been supporting QP in some shape or form, since the 80's.  Always thought the club were different, being amateur and playing 'for the sake of the game' set us apart, maybe even leading to a little snobbery.  Even when Beuker was here, there seemed to be a purposeful plan which again set us apart from the crowd, (for better or worse).  

It does often seem like a lot of the history and soul of the club has been forgotten recently, replaced by nepotism and ego-mania.  None of which sits well.

Edited July 30 by Spider1975

[Stuntiethumper]

10 minutes ago, spiders4ever said:

Agree with most of this but not the last paragraph. I support the team not the hierarchy. Due you honestly think that they'd care if the crowds halved? I don't. I really struggle to understand how they have managed to cockup the development of Lesser so badly. Why did they decide to restrict the capacity to about 1000? That was a conscious decision so what was the reason?

The revised plans did away with West Stand for the Royal Box but added a South Stand for 500 on Letherby Drive (see picture).  I guess rising (Chandelier) costs at the time meant the South Stand project wasn't completed.  Can't see any mention of a north stand so maybe that was for  phase 3 development if we ever got that far.

[Arachnophile]

23 minutes ago, Stuntiethumper said:

The revised plans did away with West Stand for the Royal Box but added a South Stand for 500 on Letherby Drive (see picture).  I guess rising (Chandelier) costs at the time meant the South Stand project wasn't completed.  Can't see any mention of a north stand so maybe that was for  phase 3 development if we ever got that far.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall various plans being publicised by the club but, i don't remember  any of them featuring the Royal Box. It just seemed to emerge out of the ground like something out of Zombie Apocalypse. 

[Stuntiethumper]

6 minutes ago, Arachnophile said:

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall various plans being publicised by the club but, i don't remember  any of them featuring the Royal Box. It just seemed to emerge out of the ground like something out of Zombie Apocalypse. 

All in here. Fill yer boots!  21/02646/FUL | Alterations to stadium including erection of directors stand with associated hospitality function (Class 11). | Lesser Hampden Park Letherby Drive Glasgow

[Arachnophile]

4 minutes ago, Stuntiethumper said:

All in here. Fill yer boots!  21/02646/FUL | Alterations to stadium including erection of directors stand with associated hospitality function (Class 11). | Lesser Hampden Park Letherby Drive Glasgow

was it publicised by the club though? I don't spend a lot of time checking planning applications.

Edited July 30 by Arachnophile

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

20 minutes ago, Arachnophile said:

was it publicised by the club though? I don't spend a lot of time checking planning applications.

This is the last I remember from the club (apart from the 'we're no' moving in yet' stuff).

https://queensparkfc.co.uk/bigger-and-better-for-lesser-hampden/

[Arachnophile]

18 minutes ago, Arachnophile said:

was it publicised by the club though? I don't spend a lot of time checking planning applications.

I see it was publicised 3 and a half months after the planning application was submitted
https://queensparkfc.co.uk/bigger-and-better-for-lesser-hampden/

and I would suggest it is not entirely clear that it would effectively destroy any prospect for any meaningful spectator accommodation on the West side of the ground.   The illustrations do not show the Royal Box at all.

[Hampden Diehard]

There seems to be no sense in building a 500 seat stand to the south (Letherby Dr) as per the original plans as it hardly deals with potential crowds in League 1 let alone the Championship. We could have 1000 standing there but I was told at the time that the SFA (?) requirement was that we had to be all-seater as it's a "new" ground. No idea if that was mince or, if it wasn't , whether it still applies.

[CathcartSkins]

29 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

There seems to be no sense in building a 500 seat stand to the south (Letherby Dr) as per the original plans as it hardly deals with potential crowds in League 1 let alone the Championship. We could have 1000 standing there but I was told at the time that the SFA (?) requirement was that we had to be all-seater as it's a "new" ground. No idea if that was mince or, if it wasn't , whether it still applies.

Absolutely. A safe standing area behind the goal would be the best option.

Various league clubs have such an arrangement. 

Would Lesser be considered a new ground, we have been there for years. Am sure our new besties within the SFA would approve.

Edited July 30 by CathcartSkins

[an86]

2 hours ago, spiders4ever said:

Agree with most of this but not the last paragraph. I support the team not the hierarchy. Due you honestly think that they'd care if the crowds halved? I don't. I really struggle to understand how they have managed to cockup the development of Lesser so badly. Why did they decide to restrict the capacity to about 1000? That was a conscious decision so what was the reason?

Agree here. The players and coaching staff deserve our full backing. Being vocal at games about the shambolic running of the club might shame or embarrass them into addressing the perfectly legitimate concerns of fans. It’s probably overdue tbh. 

[Hampden Diehard]

43 minutes ago, CathcartSkins said:

 

Would Lesser be considered a new ground

Edinburgh City seem to have been given permission to have standing at Meadowbank which is certainly a new ground.

[EaglesandSpiders]

6 hours ago, Spider1975 said:

then perhaps we, the support, are superfluous to requirements, if not just a nuisance or irrelevance to the Committee

This is what I've been feeling for some time 

[starshot131]

5 hours ago, an86 said:

Agree here. The players and coaching staff deserve our full backing. Being vocal at games about the shambolic running of the club might shame or embarrass them into addressing the perfectly legitimate concerns of fans. It’s probably overdue tbh. 

Probably some kind of chanting or whatever directed at the board would be most effective. It's a bad image for a club if the fans are going in and shouting about the state of it. 

Having said that, there's a serious question of what happens if haughey decides "oh well f**k yous then". Is the club truly reliant on him? What would be the consequences if he walks? Personally I don't mind too much if it means more transparent running of the club on a decreased budget (IE in L1/L2). If instead it means liquidation then I'm starting to worry.

[an86]

17 minutes ago, starshot131 said:

Probably some kind of chanting or whatever directed at the board would be most effective. It's a bad image for a club if the fans are going in and shouting about the state of it. 

Having said that, there's a serious question of what happens if haughey decides "oh well f**k yous then". Is the club truly reliant on him? What would be the consequences if he walks? Personally I don't mind too much if it means more transparent running of the club on a decreased budget (IE in L1/L2). If instead it means liquidation then I'm starting to worry.

If anyone decided to walk away from a club because they couldn’t handle the opinions of punters, I’d suggest their heart isn’t truly in it. I actually don’t care that’s he’s involved. By all means be involved, but let’s cut the bullshit about who is actually in charge, have a proper discussion around the structure of the club and where accountability and responsibility lies. A discussion that actually includes the people who care about the club the most. 
 

Stadium aside, the stuff that the club is getting spectacularly wrong wouldn’t require much, if any, investment. Fans want to feel included, respected and valued. We’re not getting that. Not even close to it. 

[adamqpfc]

officially the day the SLO position closes.

will it be a supporter with genuine interest & pride, and care about the club's future ?

or will it be one of haughey's friends from the city group who see's it as a big gaff with a chandelier to get pissed in.

the suspense is riveting.

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

8 hours ago, adamqpfc said:

officially the day the SLO position closes.

will it be a supporter with genuine interest & pride, and care about the club's future ?

or will it be one of haughey's friends from the city group who see's it as a big gaff with a chandelier to get pissed in.

the suspense is riveting.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens here. Were the Supporters Association involved in this recruitment at all?

[Cyclops van Gogh 1867]

21 hours ago, Stuntiethumper said:

Like you I wonder if the Hampden/Lesser arrangements were all just a "gentleman's agreement" based on mutual interests rather than a formal arrangment. It would certainly explain why we haven't put up a protest about being shunted back to a ground that is too small for us.

As someone once said, " that's the thing about a 'gentleman's agreement' ...... it's not worth the paper it's printed on" !!!

[Stuntiethumper]

No surprises here then.

Rangers expect to face delay for return to Ibrox Stadium (msn.com)