The Queen of the South thread

[BallochSonsFan]

There is no single model for fan representation that will work for every club. I do however believe that every club can benefit from meaningful fan representation. I found the justification progressed by the club board to be unsatisfactory.

Ultimately its between the QotS board, trust and fans. I'd always back meaningful fan involvement - at Dumbarton we're responsible for the club's web and social media presence, match day programme, 50/50 draws (both activities putting money into the club) and our trust/club board rep is the club commercial director. In the past we've helped provide funding to the club and we're actively pursuing greater involvement in the project to relocate to a new ground.

It works for us. It could always work better, but its still a cause for optimism.

I hope that this doesn't kill the notion of greater fan involvement at Queen of the South and that you guys can agree a model that works for your club.

[Quefa]

I don't usually post much, but last night's AGM obliges me to put forward some personal views.
With regards to fan representation on the board the lost vote, though personally disappointing, was no surprise.
The board saw it coming.
Former chairman/hero (both titles accurate and deserved, genuinely) emerged from the body of the assembled shareholders to speak against the motion.
After patting the Trust, and all other supporters groups on the head, for their splendid help, the thrust of his objections followed 2 main themes;
confidentiality, and cash.
Any notion that the confidentiality issue wouldn't be fully and explicitly explored, understood and declared openly would be totally unacceptable to all interested parties. Of course there will be issues which can't come out of the boardroom, the Trust members understand that. The key point is that a fan voice would be part of that confidential discussion. The Trust would need to trust their representative to represent their views in matters in which the total membership was not involved, while understanding that what they each want might not always happen! To repeat, the key point is that a fan voice would be part of that confidential discussion.

The cash issue, for me, is trickier. That's mainly because I've never been a director!
Mr Blount, said that it was a "formal obligation" on directors to be able and willing to bring forward "tens of thousands of pounds from their own pockets" in times of club need. Well, that took many of us by surprise.
I have briefly searched for that formal written obligation but without pre-knowledge of the complexities of company law I've been unable to find it in that tangled web. If someone can help me here, please do. Once I've seen it I unhesitatingly withdraw any reservations I might be harbouring; our directors, agreeing to that condition, deserve not praise, but medals!
Naïvely I'd always thought that there was perhaps an understanding that board members would step forward in difficult times; to find it described as an obligation shook me. It shook the Trust argument, that's for sure. It left the pro-fan representative camp with a whole new consideration ('gas at a peep' comes to mind).
If someone can clarify this "obligation/understanding" thing it would certainly help me.

Honestly, last point...."If it ain't broke don't fix it." was quoted more than once. The wooden wheel worked fine, it wasn't broke, but someone came up with a better wheel.

The vote was clear. The people had their say. With full understanding of the facts (see Brexit, Trump) the majority had their way.

What lingers is a body of fans who feel the club has an issue still to address properly.

Apologies for long posting, at least I feel better!

[kirkyblue2]

You've been sold a pup.

[Monkey Tennis]

35 minutes ago, Quefa said:

I don't usually post much, but last night's AGM obliges me to put forward some personal views.
With regards to fan representation on the board the lost vote, though personally disappointing, was no surprise.
The board saw it coming.
Former chairman/hero (both titles accurate and deserved, genuinely) emerged from the body of the assembled shareholders to speak against the motion.
After patting the Trust, and all other supporters groups on the head, for their splendid help, the thrust of his objections followed 2 main themes;
confidentiality, and cash.
Any notion that the confidentiality issue wouldn't be fully and explicitly explored, understood and declared openly would be totally unacceptable to all interested parties. Of course there will be issues which can't come out of the boardroom, the Trust members understand that. The key point is that a fan voice would be part of that confidential discussion. The Trust would need to trust their representative to represent their views in matters in which the total membership was not involved, while understanding that what they each want might not always happen! To repeat, the key point is that a fan voice would be part of that confidential discussion.

The cash issue, for me, is trickier. That's mainly because I've never been a director!
Mr Blount, said that it was a "formal obligation" on directors to be able and willing to bring forward "tens of thousands of pounds from their own pockets" in times of club need. Well, that took many of us by surprise.
I have briefly searched for that formal written obligation but without pre-knowledge of the complexities of company law I've been unable to find it in that tangled web. If someone can help me here, please do. Once I've seen it I unhesitatingly withdraw any reservations I might be harbouring; our directors, agreeing to that condition, deserve not praise, but medals!
Naïvely I'd always thought that there was perhaps an understanding that board members would step forward in difficult times; to find it described as an obligation shook me. It shook the Trust argument, that's for sure. It left the pro-fan representative camp with a whole new consideration ('gas at a peep' comes to mind).
If someone can clarify this "obligation/understanding" thing it would certainly help me.

Honestly, last point...."If it ain't broke don't fix it." was quoted more than once. The wooden wheel worked fine, it wasn't broke, but someone came up with a better wheel.

The vote was clear. The people had their say. With full understanding of the facts (see Brexit, Trump) the majority had their way.

What lingers is a body of fans who feel the club has an issue still to address properly.

Apologies for long posting, at least I feel better!

Terrific!

This outcome is distasteful.

 

[Guest Flash]

 

There may be something in the Articles covering the point or he could have been talking about personal guarantees, sometimes required when a small limited company borrows money.

As his door is always open, ask him to explain what he was talking about. And to be very specific. 

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, JessieField said:

Here's a quote from the official site today -

Director, Mark Blount said "It was important that it was added to the agenda, it brought the issue out into the open and gave the shareholders the opportunity to have their say.  There are no winners this evening, we put forward our case that we work in a streamlined way and due to confidentiality we felt that it wasn't right to have a supporters representative on the Board.  As the Chairman outlined in his speech, we are half way through a vision that we have to make the club sustainable and we want to see that through.  But we won't be around forever and who knows the next Board may see things differently.  We always have and always will operate an open door policy, we are approachable, if anyone has any gripes then come and speak to us".

Thank you.

I heard the same stuff on the radio today.  

Lots of people clearly liked it, but for some of us it's thoroughly unconvincing.

Why would a Queens Trust member be incapable of respecting confidentiality in a way that fan reps on other boards seem able to do?

Why might a fan rep be perceived as keen on the idea of derailing the drive towards making the club sustainable?

 

[kirkyblue2]

I think it would be better if the fans just took over the club.

[MONKMAN]

As pointed out last night, 3 fans already run the club.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

Just now, MONKMAN said:

As pointed out last night, 3 fans already run the club.

And 4 is too many?

The duties of Directors are set out in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006. There is no obligation on Directors to pour in their own money. That would be ridiculous. If that were the case, the bosses of RBS and other companies would have become paupers in the 2008 crash, rather than resign with huge bonuses, and no-one would ever risk becoming a director. How stupid do they think we are?

[kirkyblue2]

1 minute ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

And 4 is too many?

The duties of Directors are set out in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006. There is no obligation on Directors to pour in their own money. That would be ridiculous. If that were the case, the bosses of RBS and other companies would have become paupers in the 2008 crash, rather than resign with huge bonuses, and no-one would ever risk becoming a director. How stupid do they think we are?

Pretty stupid judging by some on here.

[Quefa]

I could choose to agree with this, but then we'd both be wrong.
Mr Blount implied that the Trust's interest in representation was a criticism of the board; totally wrong, my guess would be that 99%of the Trust believe our board is doing an excellent job, what's being discussed is moving that on even further.

[Monkey Tennis]

I've moaned plenty about some decisions our board has made, but overall, I'd agree with the consensus that says a good job is currently being done.  The work now being carried out by the club in the community for instance, is terrific and those involved deserve praise.

That however, is beside the point.  For me, this is about the principle of supporter involvement and representation, and it's disappointing that there's such an appetite for resisting it.  

Edited February 22, 2017 by Monkey Tennis

[palmy_cammy]

I've still to see anything explaining what a position on the Board would allow the Trust to do that they can't/don't already.

Going by reports from those that were at the AGM it also seems like the Trust are completely unprepared for what the role of Director entails.

To summarise; we don't know why they want the role, and they don't know what to do with the role if they had been given it.  Yet people are still adamant they should get it?

It seems to me the Trust have become too fixated on gaining the esteem of a Director's position.

[JessieField]

2 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

I've still to see anything explaining what a position on the Board would allow the Trust to do that they can't/don't already.

Going by reports from those that were at the AGM it also seems like the Trust are completely unprepared for what the role of Director entails.

To summarise; we don't know why they want the role, and they don't know what to do with the role if they had been given it.  Yet people are still adamant they should get it?

It seems to me the Trust have become too fixated on gaining the esteem of a Director's position.

I have to agree with this

[kirkyblue2]

Maybe they could help in the day to day running of the club/company.

[louisxiv]

15 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

There is no single model for fan representation that will work for every club. I do however believe that every club can benefit from meaningful fan representation. I found the justification progressed by the club board to be unsatisfactory.

Ultimately its between the QotS board, trust and fans. I'd always back meaningful fan involvement - at Dumbarton we're responsible for the club's web and social media presence, match day programme, 50/50 draws (both activities putting money into the club) and our trust/club board rep is the club commercial director. In the past we've helped provide funding to the club and we're actively pursuing greater involvement in the project to relocate to a new ground.

It works for us. It could always work better, but its still a cause for optimism.

I hope that this doesn't kill the notion of greater fan involvement at Queen of the South and that you guys can agree a model that works for your club.

For what it's worth I've always found the staff at Dumbarton a very personable bunch and the 50/50 included in parking costs is a good thing. If that's a reflection of fan involvement then I approve. 

[KingfaetheSooth]

20 hours ago, Frankie S said:

I cast my vote in favour of the trust, but wasn't surprised to see the motion defeated. Fan representation on the board is good enough for clubs such as Hearts, Motherwell and Hibs (where 85% of their fans came out in favour of boardroom representation in a recent consultative process) etc. The general trend is towards fan representation / fan ownership, but not for the first time, a curiously conservative, overly-deferential mindset prevails at Queens.

Not sure what point the cut and paste job from the Companies House website served, other than to incite a little 'it's no fur the likes ae us' dread amongst the forelock-tuggers who think they should defer to their 'betters' in such matters.

Pretty much this. 

I sat next to two of the Trust in Hearts elected Directors at the Wimbledon game last week and they were very impressive in terms of their ideas and plans for the club. Of course Hearts have had a fairly awful owner in the past so there is an appetite at the club for fan involvement at the highest level. They are also lucky that the majority shareholder is committed to a transformation programme to fan ownership. It's a real shame that the current Queens Directors cannot do the same.

The winds of change are blowing across Scottish football clubs and the Queens Directors need to embrace this and look to safeguard the club in the longer term by anchoring the ownership of the club and Palmerston with the fans and the local community. Equally of course, the fan groups need to be well organised, well run, sustainable and ready to help run the club. In this respect hey need people with a good business background involved and have the backing of local businesses as well as the fans. (they already seem to have the backing of the local council)

The Directors at Queens have shown that they have some good ideas in how to make the club sustainable but this needs to be opened up further to the wider fanbase and community if accusations of parochialism, cronyism and local business people 'feathering their own nest' are to be avoided. To be clear, I'm not saying this is happening, but openness and accountability are crucial with a football club that is not just another local business but something that should be at the heart of the local community.

 

[ChopperD]

Hearts will be fan-owned, but not fan-run. That is very much the message from the supporters’ group. Ann Budge, the club’s current chairwoman, will have major input into her successor when she hands control to the Foundation. That should take place sometime in 2020.

Foundation chairman Brian Cormack is keen to stress that plucking a randomer from row P of the Wheatfield Stand and naming him chairman isn’t an option. The group – backed by 8,000 paying members – will appoint an executive board to run Hearts in the same way Budge, Craig Levein and Scot Gardiner do at the moment.

 

“People have heard about fan ownership and it’s important to stress Hearts will be fan-owned, not fan-run,” said Cormack in the second of a two-part Evening News interview. “People want a club that’s well-managed. Because the shares will be owned by the Foundation, or the fans, it’s vital that Hearts will never be mismanaged by any one person again.

A bit of a contradiction to the previous post !

Edited February 22, 2017 by ChopperD

[KingfaetheSooth]

50 minutes ago, ChopperD said:

Hearts will be fan-owned, but not fan-run. That is very much the message from the supporters’ group. Ann Budge, the club’s current chairwoman, will have major input into her successor when she hands control to the Foundation. That should take place sometime in 2020.

Foundation chairman Brian Cormack is keen to stress that plucking a randomer from row P of the Wheatfield Stand and naming him chairman isn’t an option. The group – backed by 8,000 paying members – will appoint an executive board to run Hearts in the same way Budge, Craig Levein and Scot Gardiner do at the moment.

 

“People have heard about fan ownership and it’s important to stress Hearts will be fan-owned, not fan-run,” said Cormack in the second of a two-part Evening News interview. “People want a club that’s well-managed. Because the shares will be owned by the Foundation, or the fans, it’s vital that Hearts will never be mismanaged by any one person again.

A bit of a contradiction to the previous post !

That's pretty much how AFC Wimbledon is run. The members of the Trust appoint a Trust Board and the Board members appoint an executive Board to run the football club. The important thing is that the Trust Board are accountable to their members. No reason why a similar situation could not work at Queens or elsewhere for that matter. 

[kirkyblue2]

5 minutes ago, KingfaetheSooth said:

That's pretty much how AFC Wimbledon is run. The members of the Trust appoint a Trust Board and the Board members appoint an executive Board to run the football club. The important thing is that the Trust Board are accountable to their members. No reason why a similar situation could not work at Queens or elsewhere for that matter. 

I'd rather have a local builder run the club who is not accountable to anybody.