mcintyre_gmfc Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Have yous signed Derek Young yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) It's away games only for me. The BoD have made it categorically clear that finances are of more importance than the fans , and I simply cannot level with that. Sorry. I'll revisit my stance as and when I see fit. Fair enough. I have to say that these 'Lets move on now, put this behind us and support the team' type posts on here and on QOSMad are getting on my nerves. If people can do that fine - I'm sort of working on it myself, but don't have a go at those who can't. It's also precisely the sort of sentiment the board had to rely on in deciding to reject what we thought when casting a vote. If everyone just rallies round again within days of such an event, then what's to stop them ignoring us again, putting out some weak, contradictory explanation and carrying on like nothing's happened. It's only the blind loyalty of fans that enables them to be utterly overlooked in this way. Edited July 17, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Having just read the board's justifications for voting "Yes" I have a number of observations. Firstly, I'm prepared to cut them some slack over this. I could be wrong, but this doesn't really sound like a glib ex post facto cover up for their decision to vote in favour of Rangers newco's elevation to the first division designed to throw the fans off the scent. If we accept it at face value then it suggests that they came to the wrong decision for, largely, the right reasons (restructuring, the good of the Scottish game) rather than the wrong decision for the wrong reasons (greed, the hope of getting invited into SPL2). I still think they got it badly wrong, but I'm at least partially assured that they got it wrong with good intentions. The Scottish game is badly in need of root and branch reform and I am in agreement with many of the points alluded to in the board's statement - the requirement for play-offs to the top flight in addition to the automatic promotion place, the complete failure of the SPL and the need to look at integration of the SFL and SPL structures in one league structure and the needless proliferation of governing bodies and the need to assimilate the SFA, SPL and SFL as one unified body. I am also in agreement with the board's assessment of the compromise in sporting integrity that was represented by the automatic elevation of the Rangers newco into the SFL structure when other clubs were asked to join the queue. I agree that integrity would have been better served by asking the newco to sit out the 2012-13 season and letting them apply for the SFL bottom tier in the normal fashion further down the line. So far so good. I start to take issue however when the route of asking the newco to join the queue for admission to the SFL is labelled "real integrity." While the route of admitting them to the SFL's bottom tier with immediate effect was by it's nature a compromise, the argument that sporting integrity would be better served by by allowing them to start off at the bottom of the SFL pile rather than elevating them straight into the second tier is not invalidated. Integrity (like the lack of it) is a relative concept and there are greater or lesser degrees of both. The greater degree of integrity involved in consigning Rangers newco to the bottom tier of the league structure is not illusory, it is real. If the board really did believe that integrity could only have been upheld by voting to exclude Rangers newco from the league structure altogether then they should have voted with the other club who did so. It's not much use to cite a "principled" justification for abandoning your principles if the vote is clearly going to be lost, the "greater good" was unlikely to be secured by this method so why not stand up for what you believe in? My own view is that integrity is not a bargaining chip to be surrendered opportunistically for strategic advantage in a negotiation. If you regard integrity as a mere pawn that can be sacrificed to secure some incremental advantage then perhaps it's time to take a step back from the table and ask yourself if the game is really worth playing? It might be a trite observation but those most likely to sacrifice integrity are generally those who value it the least. If you have to sacrifice your integrity to win a prize then the value of the prize should be questioned. Reconstruction of Scottish football should be pursued as an end in itself not grasped gratefully as some tawdry inducement in a rigged game. If the board couldn't trust the authorities to deliver on excluding Rangers newco from the first division how could they trust these same discredited authorities to deliver on their vague promises of reconstruction? And who's to say the drawbridge wouldn't have been drawn up again once newco had been allowed to scramble back to the top flight? The board ask us to believe that they took a calculated gamble by accepting the inducement (reorganisation) as they believed the outcome of the game was already rigged. This fatalistic view strikes a chord of recognition, but the game is changing. For the first time the voices of the fans are being listened to and the board showed they are completely out of step with the "Supporter Spring" by ignoring them. I have little doubt that were it not for the influence of social networks and the new media that Rangers newco would have been ushered back into the SPL with barely a slap on the wrist. But thankfully the shabby machinations of bureaucrats and executives in smoke-filled rooms are becoming a remnant of the past. Accountability is not a fleeting fad it's here to stay. The Realpolitik that formerly prevailed, rooted as it was in self-interest and appeasing the Old Firm, now looks irredeemably "old school. " Sadly just as it's going out of fashion Queens seem to have embraced it. "Voting contrary to the opinions of the fans is not the same as ignoring them" is a euphemism for saying "we know best" or "thanks for your support but you don't really know what you're talking about." To acknowledge that the cumulative weight of supporter' opinion was insufficient to sway the board is to imply that the board were either completely entrenched in their views or that the fans opinions carried very little weight, neither of which is a particularly flattering insight into the collective mind-set of the board. Of course this brings us back to the "greater good" argument. Perhaps it would be acceptable to disregard the fans completely if the greater good (reconstruction) could be secured? The decision of the Queens' board to vote "Yes" strikes me as a curious combination of cynicism and naivety: cynical in their belief that that outcome was rigged and that voting Rangers newco anywhere other than into Div 1 was futile and naive enough to believe that the majority of other SFL clubs would take this view. Surely they must have sensed which way the wind was blowing? I find it hard to believe that they were quite so far out of touch with the "Zeitgeist" or spirit of the times. Why adopt an unpopular position, incur the wrath of your own fans and invite pariah status amongst visiting fans by casting a "Yes" vote to Div 1 when the outcome was clearly going to be "No"? Surely the pragmatic approach here, the avowed strategy of the board, would have been to jump on the bandwagon? I can see the attraction in being a lone beacon of integrity when all around are doing the wrong thing, but when the bandwagon is clearly marked "sporting integrity" it's a huge risk to be left as one of the few dissenting voices on the outside. Surely the board must have sensed the mood? There are well known Queens fans close to the board who seem to spend almost as much time online as Mark Zuckerberg. Claims of naivety at Palmerston were rather more believable under the tenure of dear old Davie Rae but with the advent of the new hard-headed, business-minded board, the idea that Queens are hopelessly out of touch is considerably more difficult to swallow. The irony is that the reconstruction of Scottish football that we purport to desire is almost inevitable anyway and not because it is an effective inducement towards rigging the system to ensure the premature elevation of Rangers newco into the upper echelons of the game (it wasn't) but because the root and branch reform of the game is desirable as an end in itself. If this saga has shown us anything it's how clueless and out of touch the nabobs masquerading as executives running the Scottish game are and how signally the SPL has failed. This issue is the meteorite that will hopefully doom the dinosaurs to extinction. The fans have been empowered, the mainstream media has been marginalised, the authorities have been humiliated. Reform is better served by marginalising the Old Firm and the old ways than it is by re-empowering them. Consigning Rangers newco to Div 3 gives us time to dismantle the iniquitous voting rights and start rectifying the wrongs. The SPL itself is patently not "fit for purpose" in this new world. The fans will keep the pressure up to ensure that reconstruction is delivered in due course even if the clubs drag their feet. Hopefully it will be at least a 42 club solution in the future (ideally with a pyramid system feeding in to the league structure) not a two club or a 12 club solution, a structure that is fair and beneficial to everyone and where income is distributed fairly and voting rights apportioned democratically. It wasn't just the fans who were empowered of late, the SFL clubs, on the whole, stood up quite magnificently to the bullying of the SFA and the SPL. Voices such as that of Turnbull Hutton have resonated with moral authority as the inane utterings of Regan, Doncaster et al have disintegrated into scare-mongering nonsense. The lucid and forensically detailed comments of Clyde FC have put the self-contradictory ramblings of the governing bodies to shame. The "keyboard warriors" of the internet have been more perspicacious than the vast majority of the main stream media. The game really has changed and it ill behoves Queens to disregard the fans or pay lip service to their views. On balance I'm prepared to accept that the board took the wrong decision for the right reasons. I think it was a major miscalculation to vote "Yes", but I accept that it was made honestly and in good faith and not to suit some self-serving agenda. I appreciate that they were the first to stick their head above the parapet and admit that they voted "Yes" (some who voted the same way have yet to do so) and they took the time to explain how, however misguidedly, they came to the decision. I would urge the board to listen to the fans in future and not merely to say that they do. I believe that we might just be standing on the threshold of a brave new future for Scottish football. On reflection I think it would be a great shame if Queens fans gave up on their club over this so I would urge them to continue to support the club. I do not think this is a "sack the board moment", but the board should acknowledge that they got it very wrong this time. Would you care to elaborate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Ol' bluenose is going to be busy answering his blog, unless he pulls the plug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Ol' bluenose is going to be busy answering his blog, unless he pulls the plug. What's the betting he simply points us towards the detailed, yet utterly senseless explanation they've already offered? Am I right in saying the board have yet to acknowledge that they got it wrong over Rangers joining the top two tiers regardless of the outcome of the vote? I'm sure they said they would in that statement. Is it not all a bit suspect as well that the statement came out two days after the vote? If they'd agonised and deliberated as suggested, shouldn't the rationale have already been prepared to accompany Friday's announcement in which they told us how they'd voted? I suspect the pish about what they've yet to acknowledge, was only thrown in following the scare stories which emerged in papers over the weekend alongside the St Mirren and ICT statements. Edited July 17, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Since the Cup Final the BOD have made some pretty big blunders - such as giving Chisholm an extended contract on the back of the Cup results and allowing him to spend millions on duds, allowing Brannigan to spout negative pish in the Press, particularly at the start and near the end of the season, apparently offering Gus a contract extension when bottom of the league instead of binning him when we still had a chance of staying up, and now this latest fiasco. They seem pretty happy to have fans out with buckets and will accept their cash, although they don't want them to have any shares for the thousands they invest - they made sure all the unissued shares were snapped up to prevent the fans getting any more. And, by the way, increasing the authorised share capital is very easily done. So why don't they? Ok the directors put money into the club, but collectively the fans put a whole lot more in. Nobody is telling me that the fans pay £17 every second week because the product represents good value for money. The fans are making a donation every home game on top of the voluntary stuff. I think they could go some way to rectify this if they allowed a fans' representative on the Board. However, it won't happen. They have made it abundantly clear in previous actions and especially with this latest event that they are not interested in the fans' views and certainly have no desire whatsover to have fans anywhere near the boardroom. They are like Victorian mill owners and the great unwashed on the terraces should know their place. Edited July 17, 2012 by Flash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Brusch Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Reilly and Milli on target tonight against QP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happysouth Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Since the Cup Final the BOD have made some pretty big blunders - such as giving Chisholm an extended contract on the back of the Cup results and allowing him to spend millions on duds, allowing Brannigan to spout negative pish in the Press, particularly at the start and near the end of the season, apparently offering Gus a contract extension when bottom of the league instead of binning him when we still had a chance of staying up, and now this latest fiasco. They seem pretty happy to have fans out with buckets and will accept their cash, although they don't want them to have any shares for the thousands they invest - they made sure all the unissued shares were snapped up to prevent the fans getting any more. And, by the way, increasing the authorised share capital is very easily done. So why don't they? Ok the directors put money into the club, but collectively the fans put a whole lot more in. Nobody is telling me that the fans pay £17 every second week because the product represents good value for money. The fans are making a donation every home game on top of the voluntary stuff. I think they could go some way to rectify this if they allowed a fans' representative on the Board. However, it won't happen. They have made it abundantly clear in previous actions and especially with this latest event that they are not interested in the fans' views and certainly have no desire whatsover to have fans anywhere near the boardroom. They are like Victorian mill owners and the great unwashed on the terraces should know their place. This. Mind you, the way some of the supporters (especially on the mad site) lap up their pish, its no wonder they think they can do whatever they like. Some people seem to accept anything that comes out of the boardroom and are prepared to slag of anyone else who disagrees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos1990 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Have yous signed Derek Young yet? no, played again last night, pretty much last game for trialists to impress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
football maniac Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 no, played again last night, pretty much last game for trialists to impress Were you there last night? So far the trialists Ive heard we've had are Scott Milligan David Hopkirk Derek Young Mark Durnan Craig McLeish (though I think he may have played for Stranraer at the weekend) Darren Martin Derek Lyle Scott Robertson Danny McKay Any additional trialists last night? Out of that list and based on what Ive read and heard the most likely to get deals are Durnan, Robertson, Young, Lyle, Martin and Hopkirk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Were you there last night? So far the trialists Ive heard we've had are Scott Milligan David Hopkirk Derek Young Mark Durnan Craig McLeish (though I think he may have played for Stranraer at the weekend) Darren Martin Derek Lyle Scott Robertson Danny McKay Any additional trialists last night? Out of that list and based on what Ive read and heard the most likely to get deals are Durnan, Robertson, Young, Lyle, Martin and Hopkirk Talk about football, not politics! I've not made any of the pre-season games thus far, and although I quite fancied a jolly to Workington I'll be at Wickerman. Going by reports Durnan has looked good at centre half, as has Robertson. Am I right in saying Young has played mainly as a right-back? Lyle we all know is capable in Division 2, but is he maybe too similar to others we have signed? Where does Hopkirk play? Martin I expect will be signed as backup for Robinson. Centre of defence seems solid enough with McGuffie, Higgins, Black, and McKenna all capable of playing their. Strong possibility of Durnan or Robertson joining the ranks as well. Full back looks pretty weak with Holt being the only natural full back we have. Wouldn't object to seeing both a left and right back signed up. McGuffie can do a job at right-back, but I fear he doesn't have the legs to get up and down, and may get caught out. Plenty of width in the midfield with Gibson, Clark, Carmichael and Orsi all fighting it out for 2 positions. McKenna will fulfil the destructive role in the middle of the park, with at the minute, Johnston and McShane offering the creativity from the middle of the park. This is another area I feel we are weak. I was surprised to see McShane kept on, although I will of course support the managers judgement over my own. Johnston should still have the quality to succeed in Division 2, but won't have the legs to finish games. I would also prefer to see the manager on the sidelines. Hope we aren't looking at Young as a possibility in their as I fear he would be a Simmons-esque passenger. Striker-wise, we have a potentially great partnership in Smith and Reilly, but no depth whatsoever. I don't rate Clark as a forward at all, and although Carmichael played as striker at Gretna, I think he will be at his best for us out wide. From what I saw last season, Smith is a player who likes to drop deep, or into wide areas to collect the ball. This may of course have been as a result of the appalling service he received last year, I'm not sure. I would like to see us sign a more traditional "number 9" as I think we have the players to create plenty of chances, we just need to find someone to finish them off. I'm not sure if Lyle is the man for this. It seems we are going to sign 5 or 6 players so I would like those to be - a centre half, 2 full-backs, creative midfielder, and a striker? Anyone any views? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Talk about football, not politics! I've not made any of the pre-season games thus far, and although I quite fancied a jolly to Workington I'll be at Wickerman. Going by reports Durnan has looked good at centre half, as has Robertson. Am I right in saying Young has played mainly as a right-back? Lyle we all know is capable in Division 2, but is he maybe too similar to others we have signed? Where does Hopkirk play? Martin I expect will be signed as backup for Robinson. Centre of defence seems solid enough with McGuffie, Higgins, Black, and McKenna all capable of playing their. Strong possibility of Durnan or Robertson joining the ranks as well. Full back looks pretty weak with Holt being the only natural full back we have. Wouldn't object to seeing both a left and right back signed up. McGuffie can do a job at right-back, but I fear he doesn't have the legs to get up and down, and may get caught out. Plenty of width in the midfield with Gibson, Clark, Carmichael and Orsi all fighting it out for 2 positions. McKenna will fulfil the destructive role in the middle of the park, with at the minute, Johnston and McShane offering the creativity from the middle of the park. This is another area I feel we are weak. I was surprised to see McShane kept on, although I will of course support the managers judgement over my own. Johnston should still have the quality to succeed in Division 2, but won't have the legs to finish games. I would also prefer to see the manager on the sidelines. Hope we aren't looking at Young as a possibility in their as I fear he would be a Simmons-esque passenger. Striker-wise, we have a potentially great partnership in Smith and Reilly, but no depth whatsoever. I don't rate Clark as a forward at all, and although Carmichael played as striker at Gretna, I think he will be at his best for us out wide. From what I saw last season, Smith is a player who likes to drop deep, or into wide areas to collect the ball. This may of course have been as a result of the appalling service he received last year, I'm not sure. I would like to see us sign a more traditional "number 9" as I think we have the players to create plenty of chances, we just need to find someone to finish them off. I'm not sure if Lyle is the man for this. It seems we are going to sign 5 or 6 players so I would like those to be - a centre half, 2 full-backs, creative midfielder, and a striker? Anyone any views? The two games Ive seen, Johnston has lined up a 4-4-1-1. It looks like he wants to play Gibson in behind the striker, rather than out wide, although Smith and Clark also played there at some point over the two games I saw. Lyle actually played out wide against Clyde. He was the best player on the park, but given his "baggage" I wouldnt sign him. Wouldnt disagree with your assessments though. Hopkirk is a central midfielder. Looks to me as though we are looking at keepers, right backs, centre halfs, central midfielders and strikers. Right Backs Looks like Mitchell and Young fighting it out here, I have never rated Young as a midfielder and I doubt I will rate him as a right back. Can't really remember Mitchell playing, so I would go Mitchell int he hope he is better than Young.... Centre Half Again a straight fight with Robertson and Durnan, I will admitt to not being a fan of Robertson in his last spell as a midfielder. From what I seen last year with Partick he is a pretty steady centre half, so would be happy on the mangers judgement on him and Durnan who I have never seen play. Central Midfield Looked at Hopkirk and McLeish (Young and Robertson too I suppose), I think McLeish has been told he isn't what we are looking for so it is only really Hopkirk for this position as I don't rate the other two as midfielders. Strikers McKay, Milligan and Lyle, again I think McKay has been told he isn't up to standard and Milligan and Lyle played last night. For me Lyle's record the first couple of times was average at best (29 goals in 129 games), this coupled with 1 in 18 for the champions of this league last year just doesn't seem to cut the mustard. With the other stuff he has going on, it is a no for me. That leaves Milligan, who I have seen play a lot over recent years. The boy scores goals it is simple as that, can he do it at this level, I would like to find out but I am sure the manager will do what is right for the club. Pretty much agree with all of this too. I wonder if we'll see Young and Robertson get the nod over the others, just because they are more versatile - although, did I read somewhere that Durnan had played centre midfield before? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 OK, for someone not in the know what "baggage" and "other stuff going on" does Derek Lyle have? If it's too libellous to reply here then PM me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 OK, for someone not in the know what "baggage" and "other stuff going on" does Derek Lyle have? If it's too libellous to reply here then PM me! From wikipedia In April 2011, Derek Lyle was arrested by Strathclyde Police, as part of Operation Neptune, on suspicion of possession of controlled substances at his home in Bishopbriggs.[17] This later was confirmed to be "possession with intent to supply", a much more serious charge for which he and partner Nicola Mullen (29) were released on bail pending full committal.[18] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 From wikipedia Aha, I see thanks. Yes probably best to pass on Mr Lyle then since he may be "unavailable" for 3-6 months depending on what judge he gets! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Aha, I see thanks. Yes probably best to pass on Mr Lyle then since he may be "unavailable" for 3-6 months depending on what judge he gets! Yes not much point in signing him if he's going to be out on loan for much of the season. And walking funny when he gets back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Speaking to a player this morning, who is of the opinion that Lyle will probably be getting a contract. Thought that milli was worth a punt also, as he wouldn't command much in the way of wages and would probably jump at a 6 month deal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It has been suggested to me that McShane has had a decent preseason as well though, so he may get his chance. He looked ok against Clyde. Id like to see him get a run in the team, but I dont think we can necessarily rely on him to be a starter all season, a bit like Reilly in my opinion, although I would say he is closer than McShane. When I said Robertson and Young might get the nod, I was only talking about them being signed ahead of others, rather than playing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Speaking to a player this morning, who is of the opinion that Lyle will probably be getting a contract. Thought that milli was worth a punt also, as he wouldn't command much in the way of wages and would probably jump at a 6 month deal How old is Milligan? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If Lyle signs it will probably mean Reilly will be left out again, maybe he's no ready yet, seemed to have heard this before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.