The Queen of the South thread

[QOSQOS]

Dykes from the spot for QPR against Forest

[palmy_cammy]

The way I see it, in the cases of El Bakhtaoui and Holt both were offered "once in a lifetime" opportunities to move abroad and from the outside looking in we have stepped aside and allowed both to grab them.  I would assume, particularly in the case of Holt as a local lad with a long standing relationship with the club, that in acting this way we increase our chances of the players returning to us in the future if the moves don't work out, or the players ever return to Scotland.  Although allowing both to move on weakened/will weaken the team, I don't actually have too big a problem with it.  Just because elite level football is a cynical, cut-throat business, driven by lawyers and mega-agents doesn't mean all levels have to be.  The club are still an employer, employing human beings with families and personal ambitions.  I'm proud to support a club that tries to look after it's employees even when it isn't necessarily in their best interests.  I'm sure that may be viewed as "tinpot" to some, but so be it.

The cases of Baird, Kerr and Harkins are a bit different.  All three "spat the dummy" which in my view loses them any real right to special treatment by the club.  In an ideal world they would be forced to stew over this decision and left out in the cold, but as 19QOS19 states, we simply can't afford to waste a wage like that.  It's frustrating, but again I don't think the club had any other option really.  Fortunately none of them particularly came back to haunt us in any future meetings.  In fact quite the opposite in the case of Baird.  He would try so hard to "get one over us" that he would without fail have a shocker every single time.  His regular "heads gone" moments were a real highlight for a couple of seasons.

[Skyline Drifter]

I don't think any of these scenarios are particularly similar to the Holt one to be honest. El Bakhtaoui was transferred when an acceptable offer was received. We didn't want him to go but he was desperate to play in Morocco. We only got him in the first place when a move there had fallen through in the summer. A fee was agreed for a guy who wasn't on a two year contract incidentally and would have left for nothing three months later and he was sold. That's not similar to the others at all. If anything it's the same as Lyndon Dykes, though in that case part of the deal was we got him back on loan for 4 months more. That wasn't an option for El Bakhtaoui who wanted to move to Morocco.

Kerr and Baird had fallen out with the manager at the time (Fowler) and were causing a problem so were allowed to go (again Kerr wasn't on a two year deal either, though Baird was).

Harkins and Gary Naysmith had a difference of opinion about his role in the team and agreed he would move on. As far as I know it was entirely civil and no dummy was spat. They just agreed he'd be better going somewhere else. Again he wasn't on a two year contract and, given he made a total of 11 starts in the rest of his career I think it's hard to argue that it was a bad call.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Guest TOPFITTER]

Messi Scott mysteriously slow in adding his scintillating response to Holt going to Cyprus. Awaiting incoming,,,,,,,,,

[Northfield 53]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't think any of these scenarios are particularly similar to the Holt one to be honest. El Bakhtaoui was transferred when an acceptable offer was received. We didn't want him to go but he was desperate to play in Morocco. We only got him in the first place when a move there had fallen through in the summer. A fee was agreed for a guy who wasn't on a two year contract incidentally and would have left for nothing three months later and he was sold. That's not similar to the others at all. If anything it's the same as Lyndon Dykes, though in that case part of the deal was we got him back on loan for 4 months more. That wasn't an option for El Bakhtaoui who wanted to move to Morocco.

Kerr and Baird had fallen out with the manager at the time (Fowler) and were causing a problem so were allowed to go (again Kerr wasn't on a two year deal either, though Baird was).

Harkins and Gary Naysmith had a difference of opinion about his role in the team and agreed he would move on. As far as I know it was entirely civil and no dummy was spat. They just agreed he'd be better going somewhere else. Again he wasn't on a two year contract and, given he made a total of 11 starts in the rest of his career I think it's hard to argue that it was a bad call.

Why was Holt not sold like El Bak surely Holt new club should have made a offer to Queens Holt had a year left on his contract so why just let him go for free 

 

[FrankReynolds]

41 minutes ago, Northfield 53 said:

Why was Holt not sold like El Bak surely Holt new club should have made a offer to Queens Holt had a year left on his contract so why just let him go for free 

 

There must have been contact between Holt and his new team beforehand. 

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, Mr X said:

Its amazing how many parallels can be drawn between the EPL and the second tier of Scottish football

In the strict terms of 'expecting continued professionalism from a player who might want to go elsewhere instead' they're very similar. If anything you're more likely to get a tantrum or ridiculous 'strike' behaviour at the higher level where players have more power and can easily afford any financial hit. So the idea that the only options on the table were either to let a player leave the club whenever they want for nothing or 'waste a wage' by having them stew in the Reserves is just not true at all.

Edited September 12, 2020 by vikingTON

[Messi Scott]

2 hours ago, TOPFITTER said:

Messi Scott mysteriously slow in adding his scintillating response to Holt going to Cyprus. Awaiting incoming,,,,,,,,,

Oh dear you’ve clearly been triggered. All your recent posts have been about me. Obsessed! 

[Monkey Tennis]

50 minutes ago, virginton said:

In the strict terms of 'expecting continued professionalism from a player who might want to go elsewhere instead' they're very similar. If anything you're more likely to get a tantrum or ridiculous 'strike' behaviour at the higher level where players have more power and can easily afford any financial hit. So the idea that the only options on the table were either to let a player leave the club whenever they want for nothing or 'waste a wage' by having them stew in the Reserves is just not true at all.

Clubs at a stratospherically higher economic level are also far better able to withstand any financial hit though.  A wasted wage is easily absorbed where income is vast, squads are huge and dozens are otherwise employed.

  At our level, it's pretty much intolerable, if it can be avoided.

[Northfield 53]

50 minutes ago, FrankReynolds said:

There must have been contact between Holt and his new team beforehand. 

Holt must have done the deal when under contract with Queens then got his release .

The idea of the 2 year contract is that we could sell him if we got a decent offer not just give him away 

 

 

 

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Clubs at a stratospherically higher economic level are also far better able to withstand any financial hit though.  A wasted wage is easily absorbed where income is vast, squads are huge and dozens are otherwise employed.

  At our level, it's pretty much intolerable, if it can be avoided.

I fail to see how telling another club to pay a fee to release a player from a contract or else he'll keep playing for you automatically results in you 'wasting a wage'. You're as well putting your squad on amateur terms if you genuinely believe they can't be expected to adhere to a contract and play. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by vikingTON

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

I fail to see how telling another club to pay a fee to release a player from a contract or else he'll keep playing for you automatically results in you 'wasting a wage'. You're as well putting your squad on amateur terms if you genuinely believe they can't be expected to adhere to a contract and play. 

Well, not really.

If we only offered amateur contracts we'd have even worse players than those we've spent two years fielding.

[Homer Thompson]

3 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

The way I see it, in the cases of El Bakhtaoui and Holt both were offered "once in a lifetime" opportunities to move abroad and from the outside looking in we have stepped aside and allowed both to grab them.  I would assume, particularly in the case of Holt as a local lad with a long standing relationship with the club, that in acting this way we increase our chances of the players returning to us in the future if the moves don't work out, or the players ever return to Scotland.  Although allowing both to move on weakened/will weaken the team, I don't actually have too big a problem with it.  Just because elite level football is a cynical, cut-throat business, driven by lawyers and mega-agents doesn't mean all levels have to be.  The club are still an employer, employing human beings with families and personal ambitions.  I'm proud to support a club that tries to look after it's employees even when it isn't necessarily in their best interests.  I'm sure that may be viewed as "tinpot" to some, but so be it.

The cases of Baird, Kerr and Harkins are a bit different.  All three "spat the dummy" which in my view loses them any real right to special treatment by the club.  In an ideal world they would be forced to stew over this decision and left out in the cold, but as 19QOS19 states, we simply can't afford to waste a wage like that.  It's frustrating, but again I don't think the club had any other option really.  Fortunately none of them particularly came back to haunt us in any future meetings.  In fact quite the opposite in the case of Baird.  He would try so hard to "get one over us" that he would without fail have a shocker every single time.  His regular "heads gone" moments were a real highlight for a couple of seasons.

Pretty much this.

2 hours ago, Northfield 53 said:

Why was Holt not sold like El Bak surely Holt new club should have made a offer to Queens Holt had a year left on his contract so why just let him go for free 

 

Maybe the club hes gone to dont have any money but the player wanted to go

1 hour ago, virginton said:

In the strict terms of 'expecting continued professionalism from a player who might want to go elsewhere instead' they're very similar. If anything you're more likely to get a tantrum or ridiculous 'strike' behaviour at the higher level where players have more power and can easily afford any financial hit. So the idea that the only options on the table were either to let a player leave the club whenever they want for nothing or 'waste a wage' by having them stew in the Reserves is just not true at all.

They're not similar ... at all.

19 minutes ago, virginton said:

I fail to see how telling another club to pay a fee to release a player from a contract or else he'll keep playing for you automatically results in you 'wasting a wage'. You're as well putting your squad on amateur terms if you genuinely believe they can't be expected to adhere to a contract and play. 

You've never had to function in the real world, have you?

[vikingTON]

Ah yes, the 'real world' in which professional football clubs let valuable members of their first team leave *for nothing* just because they said pretty please. 

There's only one side of this demonstrating a sheltered existence and it's definitely the one that would have old Jim McLean somersaulting in his grave if he were dead yet.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Well, not really.

If we only offered amateur contracts we'd have even worse players than those we've spent two years fielding.

You'd be able to empty them in January when they turned out to be utter shite again though. Think of it as the Partick/Falkirk strategy without the associated costs.

[Homer Thompson]

Ah yes, the 'real world' in which professional football clubs let valuable members of their first team leave *for nothing* just because they said pretty please. 

There's only one side of this demonstrating a sheltered existence and it's definitely the one that would have old Jim McLean somersaulting in his grave if he were dead yet.

No, the real world where situations are complicated, people are complicated and doing the right thing doesn't always look like the best thing. A real world, as I suspected, is totally foreign to you.

Thanks for playing though

[Guest TOPFITTER]

14 hours ago, Mr X said:

The way I see it, in the cases of El Bakhtaoui and Holt both were offered "once in a lifetime" opportunities

In Holt's case a twice in a lifetime opportunity !!!

[Guest TOPFITTER]

15 hours ago, Messi Scott said:

Oh dear you’ve clearly been triggered. All your recent posts have been about me. Obsessed! 

and your take on the Holt ?

 

[Homer Thompson]

24 minutes ago, TOPFITTER said:

In Holt's case a twice in a lifetime opportunity !!!

I didnt say that 

[Messi Scott]

4 hours ago, TOPFITTER said:

and your take on the Holt ?

 

So you want me removed from the QoS page but yet you want my opinion on Holt leaving