D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 And so are Rangers. Allegedly. Rangers, Now, Then & Forever. But for the older Bears among us the thread title has a link to Bond. Not James Bond, but Ibrox Bond Holders. Who bought into our club with the promise of a seat for life. Guys like Gary. Only Gary received an e-mail informing him this will be the last season his seat would be guaranteed. Gary subsequently phoned the club today and pointed out that he had bought his seat for life. He was told by a staff member at our club that his seat had been bought from the oldco and the newco would not be honouring the agreement. One wonders where to start with this. How about the thousands of Rangers fans who have to suffer daily taunts that â??your club is deadâ?. Our support has laboured tirelessly to dispel this falsehood, quoting several objective official sources which confirm the continuity of our history and of course, our titles. Of course there was considerable anger inside Ibrox when several players refused to TUPE over to the newco. In fact this very subject is currently the subject of litigation, drawing comments at the time from Charles Green â??I'm very, very disappointed of course. â?? and "I think this is just opportunism." Perhaps then those inside Ibrox will understand the â??disappointmentâ? of fans who see this latest dishonouring of an agreement with the support as just â??opportunismâ?. There was considerable mocking of the SFA/SPL when they continually moved the goalposts with regard to oldco and newco. When it suited their agenda we were oldco when it didnâ??t we were newco. It seems our club are as guilty of this practice as those they criticised for such very action. I sure someone familiar with corporate or business law will point out what Rangers are doing is within the law. But that doesn't make it right. Particular when it is to the detriment of supporters who by their loyalty have kept this club alive. The club I supported has become a mere shadow of itself. And that is being generous. Very generous. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 We have enough of a battle telling our enemies we are the same club without the club itself doing this to its lifeblood. What a shame. I do wonder who is responsible for such a decision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Why can't the guy keep his seat? Is everyone else in the same boat? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I thought this was going to be a thread about Airdrie still being Airdrie. Instead it is this utterly depressing story. This is another disgrace. Makes me feel sick. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 That is disgraceful. Who would be behind this decision? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,843 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 The club as much as genuinely possible should be allowing bond-holders the chance to retain their life seats. I can't see any reason, as long as people are given the opportunity, for this not to happen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 The club as much as genuinely possible should be allowing bond-holders the chance to retain their life seats. I can't see any reason, as long as people are given the opportunity, for this not to happen. Its now quite clear Frankie that such retention now has a condition attached thereto viz. the renewal of season ticket. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,843 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Its now quite clear Frankie that such retention now has a condition attached thereto viz. the renewal of season ticket. Was that the case previously - i.e. could a bond holder not renew for a year or two but still retain their seat; thus effectively renting it out? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,047 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I'm not that familiar with these bonds, but weren't those not essentially an agreement with "the company" rather than "the club". And was it not said at the very first instance that along with other debts etc., somesuch as bonds would go down the drain too? As in: the administration pendulum swings in both ways. Now, I see that the bond holders would like to retain their seats, but from my understanding, their right to have a seat for life was with the OldCo running tickets/seat sales et al, not the NewCo. Sure, NewCo could honour that in some way, yet, unless these people do something (e.g. buy season tickets) for NewCo, why should it? Don't get me wrong here, I'm just asking and can fully understand the frustration of the bond-holders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DietofWorms Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Will they be going round removing all the names off the seats? 0 Quote Link to post 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.