the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Always happy to do you a favour, GS. I make that 43,604 for the games v Brechin, East Fife and Arbroath. So the difference compared with this season is 8,034. Defence rests. we also had a 15k drop from game 1 to game 2 this season. maybe thats the real trend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Yes, I know that but for a variety of reasons right now I don't have a great sense of humour. Then I shall desist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 we can kid on about attendances all we like but we are down 15k on paid for season books. every member of staff has 2 free books now. 20 thousand people did not renew in the summer. ibrox is half full for games at a higher level than last year. their is no value in belittling the numbers. this board have chased away tens of thousands off paying customers by action and inaction. My understanding was that the 23,300? number given in court was the paid for number of ST's I think the word used was "sold" or something of the like and was it not 35,000 or 36,000 last season. So it is a very substantial number but perhaps not quite as many as you suggest. And that does not equate to the reduced attendance because about 8,000 bought tickets for Dumbarton and QoS and 18,000 for Hearts. I am not belittling the numbers in any way; as I said it is costing the Club £500,000/month. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 we also had a 15k drop from game 1 to game 2 this season. maybe thats the real trend. I don't think that's accurate either. Hearts 43,683 Dumbarton 31,175 Drop 12,508 But the opposition makes that hardly a fair comparison or a trend. If we are 12,500 down next time Hearts come to town; now that WOULD be a trend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 My understanding was that the 23,300? number given in court was the paid for number of ST's I think the word used was "sold" or something of the like and was it not 35,000 or 36,000 last season. So it is a very substantial number but perhaps not quite as many as you suggest. And that does not equate to the reduced attendance because about 8,000 bought tickets for Dumbarton and QoS and 18,000 for Hearts. I am not belittling the numbers in any way; as I said it is costing the Club £500,000/month. its a total number and it was 37k last year, but whats a few k between friends regardless. hearts also brought the biggest away league crowd for decades to ibrox outside OF games. 8k 14k 20k. it's to many for the board to remain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 I don't think that's accurate either. Hearts 43,683 Dumbarton 31,175 Drop 12,508 But the opposition makes that hardly a fair comparison or a trend. If we are 12,500 down next time Hearts come to town; now that WOULD be a trend. i wouldn't bet against it if the league isn't close. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 i wouldn't bet against it if the league isn't close. First game of the season Flag unfurling Sandy Jardine tribute all contributing to pushing the attendence up against Hearts. Next Hearts League game at Ibrox is scheduled for the middle of January and the crowd for that game will be well down on 43.6K 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,808 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 it is quite interesting to see the different views on the share issue in the various papers. E.g., the DR ... Rangers made approximately 19 million shares at 20 pence available to existing stockholders and almost 16m were purchased including, crucially, a £500,000 tranche by the Easdale brothers to see it over the line.Had fewer than 15m been sold the issue would have been declared a flop, monies returned, and the club would have been left unable to pay its bills. I'm not sure how this business actually works, but I would have assumed that there was no certain mark that had to be passed "or else". Well, maybe 5 to 10m, but "below" 15m out of 19m would have been a "flop"? As in, the club needed money no matter what, so they would surely have taken anything upwards from 10m. I read somewhere before that certain investors and club officials stated that they would buy up shares to push this issue through anyway ... and some did now (probably with as little money as required). The question now arises, as this was a "in house" issue, was it enough to convince the relevant people that an new "open to all" issue can be a goer, if proposed and voted for at the AGM? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 it is quite interesting to see the different views on the share issue in the various papers. E.g., the DR ... I'm not sure how this business actually works, but I would have assumed that there was no certain mark that had to be passed "or else". Well, maybe 5 to 10m, but "below" 15m out of 19m would have been a "flop"? As in, the club needed money no matter what, so they would surely have taken anything upwards from 10m. I read somewhere before that certain investors and club officials stated that they would buy up shares to push this issue through anyway ... and some did now (probably with as little money as required). The question now arises, as this was a "in house" issue, was it enough to convince the relevant people that an new "open to all" issue can be a goer, if proposed and voted for at the AGM? what you have quoted is entirely accurate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 what you have quoted is entirely accurate. No, it's not, or are you talking about the DR quote?. Anything less than 75% would have seen the share issue fail and another source of funding would have been required. 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.