The Queen of the South thread

[Skyline Drifter]

8 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Last season.

Martin, traemarco,  robson, Marshall, Harvie.    

Dick and Strapp could be argued as well.   

 

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

Lewis Strapp is a starter for ten and Dundee United probably had three more on their books alone. Not looking too good for the claim tbh. 

I'll give you Martin and probably Tremarco last season. Harvie is honking every time I see him but appears to do well other times and given his standing in the game he's probably a 3rd. I'd take Holt over Jamie Robson or Adrian Sporle any day. You're having an absolute laugh with Liam Dick. I like Strapp but Holt's certainly a better defender. Strapp is better when his own team have the ball.

Jordan Marshall is an interesting one. I think pretty much all Queens fans would say Holt is better and pretty much all Dundee fans would say Marshall is. It's a coin flip. Without even reaching his own best form though Holt was easily one of the better Championship level left backs last season. Which is what I said.

[die hard doonhamer]

Just now, ALOREBURNE said:

Don’t see you crying about the 4 billion refurbishment of a building though... 

 

80E3920B-D6BC-4F41-BE0E-2F1CA7C3FE21.webp 75.69 kB · 0 downloads

Doing so on the Queen of the South thread on Pie and Bovril would be a bit weird, to be fair. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, ALOREBURNE said:

Don’t see you crying about the 4 billion refurbishment of a building though... 

 

 

The Scottish Parliament building cost over £400m. Just saying.

[FrankReynolds]

24 minutes ago, Flash said:

Your post only said it wasn’t allowed to be withdrawn by board members, not that it wasn’t allowed to be withdrawn at all. I think that restriction (and the one re owners) only applies to make sure directors don’t use it to pay themselves or to pay dividends to shareholders or otherwise reward owners. If it is used to pay the players’ or the manager’s normal wages, it will be withdrawn by employees.
However, there may be other restrictions that prevent it being used for one-off events like paying off a manager.

I was just quoting what I read elsewhere, I don't know much about it at all and was just trying to answer the questions put on this thread about it. But to be fair, I could have worded it better. 

Anyway, it's some good knows at least. 

[D'Jaffo]

I'll give you Martin and probably Tremarco last season. Harvie is honking every time I see him but appears to do well other times and given his standing in the game he's probably a 3rd. I'd take Holt over Jamie Robson or Adrian Sporle any day. You're having an absolute laugh with Liam Dick. I like Strapp but Holt's certainly a better defender. Strapp is better when his own team have the ball.
Jordan Marshall is an interesting one. I think pretty much all Queens fans would say Holt is better and pretty much all Dundee fans would say Marshall is. It's a coin flip. Without even reaching his own best form though Holt was easily one of the better Championship level left backs last season. Which is what I said.

Every Ayr player is honking against you lot so it’s not saying much. The majority of fans of other teams would agree Harvie was probably up there with Lewis Martin as the best LB in the league last season.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, D'Jaffo said:

Every Ayr player is honking against you lot so it’s not saying much. The majority of fans of other teams would agree Harvie was probably up there with Lewis Martin as the best LB in the league last season.

It's not just against us though, although Harvie has had a couple of personal nightmares in particular (the 5-0 at Palmerston he looked like a competition winner). He also had a dreadful game against (I think) Dundee United in a televised game I watched and hasn't stood out well for the u21's when I've seen them. However, I'm not disputing his overall standing last season.

[ALOREBURNE]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The Scottish Parliament building cost over £400m. Just saying.

17 year ago, not really relevant.  Westminster is currently costing taxpayer 2 million a week in refurbishment costs during this pandemic. 

[Skyline Drifter]

33 minutes ago, Flash said:

Your post only said it wasn’t allowed to be withdrawn by board members, not that it wasn’t allowed to be withdrawn at all. I think that restriction (and the one re owners) only applies to make sure directors don’t use it to pay themselves or to pay dividends to shareholders or otherwise reward owners. If it is used to pay the players’ or the manager’s normal wages, it will be withdrawn by employees.
However, there may be other restrictions that prevent it being used for one-off events like paying off a manager.

I assume the use of the term "withdrawn" means it can't be used to repay Directors Loans (or dividends - does any football club ever pay a dividend?) rather than anything to do with normal payroll. It would be hard to envisage a way to prevent that.

At this stage it's speculation though.

[die hard doonhamer]

1 minute ago, ALOREBURNE said:

17 year ago, not really relevant.  Westminster is currently costing taxpayer 2 million a week in refurbishment costs during this pandemic. 

You're comparing a Westminster decision with a Scottish government decision here.

[parsforlife]

8 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

I'll give you Martin and probably Tremarco last season. Harvie is honking every time I see him but appears to do well other times and given his standing in the game he's probably a 3rd. I'd take Holt over Jamie Robson or Adrian Sporle any day. You're having an absolute laugh with Liam Dick. I like Strapp but Holt's certainly a better defender. Strapp is better when his own team have the ball.

Jordan Marshall is an interesting one. I think pretty much all Queens fans would say Holt is better and pretty much all Dundee fans would say Marshall is. It's a coin flip. Without even reaching his own best form though Holt was easily one of the better Championship level left backs last season. Which is what I said.

You can’t be ‘comfortably’ one of the best when there are a few significantly better than him(which you accept) and your debating where he ranks amongst the general middle of the road guys. 

[ALOREBURNE]

1 minute ago, die hard doonhamer said:

You're comparing a Westminster decision with a Scottish government decision here.

17 years ago, not relevant at all  

[die hard doonhamer]

Just now, ALOREBURNE said:

17 years ago, not relevant at all  

No, that's not what I'm saying. Your are comparing the UK government's decision to renovate Westminster with the Scottish government's decision to fund the championship.

It's not relevant at all 

[ALOREBURNE]

3 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said:

No, that's not what I'm saying. Your are comparing the UK government's decision to renovate Westminster with the Scottish government's decision to fund the championship.

It's not relevant at all 

You’re complaining about money being spent to save Scottish football but not batting an eyelid on 2 million a week being spent on a building.  
 

This is getting really boring now. 

[Guest Flash]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I assume the use of the term "withdrawn" means it can't be used to repay Directors Loans (or dividends - does any football club ever pay a dividend?) rather than anything to do with normal payroll. It would be hard to envisage a way to prevent that.

At this stage it's speculation though.

Probably not. I was just quickly trying to illustrate some of the things it probably couldn’t be used for. Although clubs at this level generally don’t pay dividends, I imagine not allowing them will be a condition of the grant in order to prevent the possibility of using it that way.

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

You can’t be ‘comfortably’ one of the best when there are a few significantly better than him(which you accept) and your debating where he ranks amongst the general middle of the road guys. 

Whit? Of course you can.

If I've got ten people in a room, Leo Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kevin Holt and 7 guys from my work I think I can legitimately say that Kevin Holt would be "comfortably" one of the best footballers in the room.

And I at no point said any of them were "significantly" better. I don't think any of them are.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

Probably not. I was just quickly trying to illustrate some of the things it probably couldn’t be used for. Although clubs at this level generally don’t pay dividends, I imagine not allowing them will be a condition of the grant in order to prevent the possibility of using it that way.

Need to wait and see what the actual conditions are I guess. I imagine it will be limited to legitimate "running costs" including payroll. It can't realistically not include payroll. That's clearly the main cost of every football club. If it wasn't covering payroll it would take some clubs years to run up £500k of costs. Whether there are caveats about not covering new employees or directors remuneration or such like will be interesting but largely irrelevant. The clubs don't have "no" money now so it presumably wouldn't be difficult to use existing funds to cover any costs the grant isn't allowed to cover.

[die hard doonhamer]

14 minutes ago, ALOREBURNE said:

You’re complaining about money being spent to save Scottish football but not batting an eyelid on 2 million a week being spent on a building.  
 

This is getting really boring now. 

You've invented an argument here. I haven't said whether I do or don't agree with the Westminster renovation costs (I don't). It's completely irrelevant in the context of this decision though.

I agree.

[Guest Flash]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Need to wait and see what the actual conditions are I guess. I imagine it will be limited to legitimate "running costs" including payroll. It can't realistically not include payroll. That's clearly the main cost of every football club. If it wasn't covering payroll it would take some clubs years to run up £500k of costs. Whether there are caveats about not covering new employees or directors remuneration or such like will be interesting but largely irrelevant. The clubs don't have "no" money now so it presumably wouldn't be difficult to use existing funds to cover any costs the grant isn't allowed to cover.

Yeah, my point was that it could be used for existing payroll (which was in response to a poster saying it couldn’t be withdrawn at all).
What I wasn’t sure of was whether it could be used for a one-off cost like paying off a manager. I take the point that the clubs already have some money. However, I just wondered whether there would be restrictions to prevent clubs paying for things they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to afford had they not received the grant. Like it would be easy to get round not being allowed to use it for transfer fees if a club could say “We were going to use that (say) £100k we had in the bank for transfer fees when, in reality, they needed it for wages.
It will come down to the conditions of the grant and the reporting requirements for obtaining and using it. Its use on wages might be capped at last season’s level, for example, to prevent a club from bringing in players in January they couldn’t have afforded otherwise.

[parsforlife]

19 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

And I at no point said any of them were "significantly" better. I don't think any of them are.

That’s madness.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

3 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Need to wait and see what the actual conditions are I guess. I imagine it will be limited to legitimate "running costs" including payroll. It can't realistically not include payroll. That's clearly the main cost of every football club. If it wasn't covering payroll it would take some clubs years to run up £500k of costs. Whether there are caveats about not covering new employees or directors remuneration or such like will be interesting but largely irrelevant. The clubs don't have "no" money now so it presumably wouldn't be difficult to use existing funds to cover any costs the grant isn't allowed to cover.

How would you distinguish between payments from existing money and payments from the grant? Would you have to hold the grant in a separate bank account?