Season ticket fund website now live

[buster. 5,257]

No I don't but remember that transfers will be open as soon as the ST deadline passes and I know a lot of people who sit around me who are keen to get better seats.

 

I know a lot of people who have other priorities.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Rangers "hate" their fans; where are you getting that, GS?

 

This board sure do. I'm not at all sure they ate the first one to but that's irrelevant

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It will only fail if enough fans do not back it. If we stand shoulder to shoulder they most certainly will grant us security.

 

GS I am sure you know that there is no chance of that happening.

 

I had a look at a poll on another web site, 196 people have voted so far:

 

• Yes, I have done so already or will be doing so regardless of where the money is going (117 votes [59.69%])
  
• 
  
• No, I won't renew while the current board are in charge (31 votes [15.82%])
  
• 
  
• No, I won't be renewing due to other reasons (14 votes [7.14%])
  
• 
  
• I am unsure whether to renew or not and will be waiting to see what happens first (34 votes [17.35%])
  

 

I recognise that it's not a big enough sample to be robust and it could well be that the folks on that site are not representative of ST holders as a whole but it's not like it's a vote of 10 people, it's a decent number.

 

If it were to work out in practice then it would mean that ultimately roughly 20,000 would renew and perhaps 15%-20% might go for the DK scheme, say 5,000-7,000, not insignificant I grant you but not nearly enough to put real pressure on the Board. In any event there is no mention in the FAQ's or the T&C's about getting rid of the Board, precisely because DK knows that that is not achievable. Theoretcially this scheme might be achievable but in practice it has no chance.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I know a lot of people who have other priorities.

 

And that's absolutely fine.

 

However, there would be a strong argument to say that the Club should give priority to those who choose to renew within the stated deadline, rather than those who chose to withhold their money for whatever reason.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

This board sure do.

 

What evidence do you have to support that contention?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

GS I am sure you know that there is no chance of that happening.

 

I had a look at a poll on another web site, 196 people have voted so far:

 

• Yes, I have done so already or will be doing so regardless of where the money is going (117 votes [59.69%])
  
• 
  
• No, I won't renew while the current board are in charge (31 votes [15.82%])
  
• 
  
• No, I won't be renewing due to other reasons (14 votes [7.14%])
  
• 
  
• I am unsure whether to renew or not and will be waiting to see what happens first (34 votes [17.35%])
  

 

I recognise that it's not a big enough sample to be robust and it could well be that the folks on that site are not representative of ST holders as a whole but it's not like it's a vote of 10 people, it's a decent number.

 

If it were to work out in practice then it would mean that ultimately roughly 20,000 would renew and perhaps 15%-20% might go for the DK scheme, say 5,000-7,000, not insignificant I grant you but not nearly enough to put real pressure on the Board. In any event there is no mention in the FAQ's or the T&C's about getting rid of the Board, precisely because DK knows that that is not achievable. Theoretcially this scheme might be achievable but in practice it has no chance.

Oh please, I think we all know which forum you got that sample from and it's obvious what they are going to say with all the internet sheep herding that goes on there.

[buster. 5,257]

And that's absolutely fine.

 

However, there would be a strong argument to say that the Club should give priority to those who choose to renew within the stated deadline, rather than those who chose to withhold their money for whatever reason.

 

 

As I said, many others have more important matters in the forefront of their mind, than their seat.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

"That said there will doubtless be people who will say that any sacrifice is worth it in pursuit of their objective but there will be others who are under the illusion that if the security is granted they will get their own seat when in fact they are not guaranteed any seat all."

 

Why do you persist with this nonsense? We had 13000 non ST seats last season (minus visiting fans) and everyone expects ST sales to be down no matter what. But you say that there is no guarantee that existing ST holders will get a ST at all, are you saying the shysters will refuse to sell?

 

It's not nonsense at all it's fact.

 

4.4 We reserve the right to cancel your request and your contract with us at any time prior to our collection of your payment.

 

5.3.1 we shall not have any obligation to purchase any Season Tickets on your behalf, and you acknowledge that this means you will not receive any Season Tickets

 

What's the purpose of these clauses?

 

7.2.3 in the event that Rangers refuses to do provide Season Ticket(s)

 

(Surprised at the obvious error in the wording which has clearly been changed.)

 

I'm not saying it's likely, but if it was nonsense as you put it, why would Mr King's lawyers have taken great care to give themselves at least three outs?

 

Please can you explain that to me? And don't just say it's lawyer speak; these clauses are there for a reason.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Is there any provision for people who are sitting together to remain together or is it done purely on an individual basis?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Oh please, I think we all know which forum you got that sample from and it's obvious what they are going to say with all the internet sheep herding that goes on there.

 

I got it from Rangers Media and I know nothing of that site's background or the background of those who post there although I do know that at least one well respected poster from here also posts there.

 

I don't know how they would manipulate a poll result any more than that might happen here.