Jump to content

The Queen of the South thread


Recommended Posts

Why should it matter to QoS how many tickets are sold? That's not supposed to sound cheeky, it's a genuine question.

I have no idea how the business works but what I thought happened with regards to these types of concert; specifically Status Quo and Palmerston is this:-

Status Quo hire Palmerston. They pay us £££ for the rental of our facilities. Status Quo's management are responsible for the advertising. The only thing I thought QoS FC would have to provide is a suitable venue and security/safety. The amount of tickets sold for the gig shouldn't affect the amount of money QoS receive as the hiring of Palmerston should be a set price. If the band don't sell as many tickets as they expect then that's tough shit for them, but QoS still get their agreed fee. As I say, I don't have a clue about the way it works, but I'd be pretty shocked and disappointed if it's QoS' responsibility to do ALL the running with regards to selling tickets.

That's not how this has been done unfortunately, prepare to be shocked & disappointed.

Edited by qos8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how the deal for this gig is structured, but normally a promoter rather than the band or it's management takes all the risk in a concert promotion. Self-promoted gigs are pretty rare. The music business is structured in such a way that bands at a certain level demand guarantees that cover all the the costs (to the band) of their gig or tour. The band are guaranteed a basic fee (to cover their costs and expected earnings) set against a percentage of the net income (after deduction of VAT) from the concert's proceeds less agreed costs. If the band's earnings on the profit split exceed the basic guarantee, the band take the higher figure. The promoter covers all the costs, including sound and light and stage hire, crew, security, advertising, band accommodation, hospitality, technical rider etc. If insufficient tickets are sold, the promoter, not the band, covers the loss. If a profit is made, the band get their percentage of the profit split in addition to their guarantee, the promoter's share of the profit is his end, hence the gig has to exceed break even for the promoter to make money (though of course the promoter, assuming it is the club, can make money from peripherals such as drink, food, the house share of merchandise etc).

The promoter may or may not be the club, or it may be the club in collaboration with someone else. Only if the promoter is an external promoter (i.e. someone not connected with the club hires the venue, pays rental for it and absorbs all the show costs) does the club not carry some financial risk (though it is still at risk of the gig being cancelled or income being lower than expected if insufficient tickets are sold - though the venue would normally structure a venue hire deal with the promoter to insulate against cancellation, possibly including a non refundable deposit, just as the band would normally demand a non refundable deposit from the promoter).

Stadium gigs are expensive to stage, so the financial risk (to whoever is promoting) is unlikely to be inconsiderable. If the club are promoting the gig then their costs will be lower than an external promoter as they own the venue and won't have to pay themselves to hire it. The costs of staging and advertising the gig will still be considerable though.

That's normally how the music business works. Like any business, and possibly more than most, it is speculative and comes with risk attached. Live music promotion is far from the guaranteed earner that many people seem to think it is. I'd have thought Status Quo would do ok in Dumfries, but I don't know what the gig's break even point is. As a shareholder, I'm not sure I'd be delighted with the prospect of the club entering the live music promotion game, if that is indeed what it is doing. I'd prefer if it was hiring the stadium to external promoters, who would absorb the risk on such gigs.

Edited by Frankie S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we've played 3 forwards since moving to a back 3, so whats the problem?

I meant to edit my post to add we had more shots on Saturday than in either of the recent wins against Alloa or Cowdenbeath. Attacking intent and creating chances obviously wasnt an issue on Saturday

I have made my point . Got to be - for me- Reilly and Russell up front on Friday and go straight for the throat . Edited by JRS LEFT PEG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paton more or less played beside Lyle on Saturday, thought we missed gav on Saturday big time as he stretches the game more than the other 2. But let's not forget as Mr x pointed out we dominated this game just couldn't get ball in back of the net. When mcshane hit the post really should have known it wasn't going to be our day.

Hopefully tan man wins his appeal if ones made and gav makes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paton more or less played beside Lyle on Saturday, thought we missed gav on Saturday big time as he stretches the game more than the other 2. But let's not forget as Mr x pointed out we dominated this game just couldn't get ball in back of the net. When mcshane hit the post really should have known it wasn't going to be our day.

Hopefully tan man wins his appeal if ones made and gav makes it.

I'd agree on what Reilly offers us in stretching the game. He allows us to play further forward and despite not always being the coolest finisher, gives us more of a cutting edge. I don't quite go along with the view that we did everything but score on Saturday though. Yes, we dominated and the McShane header could have been no closer. The fact is though that it wasn't a game full of missed chances. A decent save early in the second half was the next closest we came, with everything else being speculative and hopeful.

Since Reilly pulled up, we've scored two goals in three games, two of them at home and two against part-time sides. It's a must that he's back for Friday, so I'll watch BPM's bulletins on his fitness very eagerly.

Edited by Monkey Tennis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I'm not particularly surprised by accusations of a Chairman of a Scottish Football team being stingy. I think we'd struggle without Reilly regardless of how many you play up top. Baird and Lyle were pretty awful whenever the they played together and who else was there that other clubs signed that would have been any good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree on what Reilly offers us in stretching the game. He allows us to play further forward and despite not always being the coolest finisher, gives us more of a cutting edge. I don't quite go along with the view that we did everything but score on Saturday though. Yes, we dominated and the McShane header could have been no closer. The fact is though that it wasn't a game full of missed chances. A decent save early in the second half was the next closest we came, with everything else being speculative and hopeful.

Since Reilly pulled up, we've scored two goals in three games, two of them at home and two against part-time sides. It's a must that he's back for Friday, so I'll watch BPM's bulletins on his fitness very eagerly.

I didnt mean to imply that we "did everything but score". The point was more that there was no lack of attacking intent.

We did create more chances than you mention though. McShane hit the post and brought a great save from the keeper from the edge of the box. Carmichael was through on goal and should have done better, as should Lyle with a free header from 8 yards out that he headed straight to the keeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could explain why the 20's squad have been delivering flyers for the gig.

Suppose they have to something with their time.

So not only are they getting little to no training, they are used to deliver flyers now.

You couldn't make it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods any chance of creating a "Petty Grievances About the Youth Setup" thread? It shouldn't be too much of a strain on the forums resources as it will just be qos8 posting in it.

Wouldn't call it petty, just pointing out facts like many others have. Though I do find it amusing that you try & constantly belittle anything that is true & posted about it by anybody.

I wonder why !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't call it petty, just pointing out facts like many others have. Though I do find it amusing that you try & constantly belittle anything that is true & posted about it by anybody.

I wonder why !!!

People actually acting like under 20s results matter :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...