Club Statement On Play Off Tickets

[Zappa 0]

After costs and the SPFL's play-off tax our Club would have made peanuts anyway and that's assuming we didn't end up making a loss, so it's a great gesture to the fans to just try to cover the costs or minimize the losses while flicking the vickey at SPIFFELL.

[calscot 0]

After costs and the SPFL's play-off tax our Club would have made peanuts anyway and that's assuming we didn't end up making a loss, so it's a great gesture to the fans to just try to cover the costs or minimize the losses while flicking the vickey at SPIFFELL.

 

The amount we would make and stand to lose is exactly half the ticket price times 25k. Our costs are still there even if the event is free. At £20 a ticket, full uptake and three games, we could be £750k worse of than we would have been - it just so happens that the SPFL lose the same. The gesture is not completely empty.

[JohnMc 2,801]

A good statement from the club: a PR no-brainer in which even of harshest of media critics can't argue with given the Hibs precedent of last year.

 

One difference is that Hibs only had to host the one play-off match so the SPFL may point to that in any debate. However, I suspect RFC will have them by the short and curlies legally...

 

Are you confident we won't only be playing one?

 

Good statement though.

[Frankie 8,651]

Are you confident we won't only be playing one?

 

Good statement though.

 

No, unfortunately I'm not.

 

However, the more fans we have at the game the better to aid us.

[limeburner 0]

A 50% take before costs are deducted is profittering,seriously the OFT should be contacted.

[craig 5,199]

A 50% take before costs are deducted is profittering,seriously the OFT should be contacted.

 

It is thievery, plain and simple. I could live with 50% AFTER costs (even then 50% seems excessive). But 50% BEFORE costs ? NO WAY.

 

Look at an example.

 

Revenue of 1 million

Costs of 600k

Profit 400k

 

50% BEFORE costs - SPFL make 500k profit

50% AFTER costs - SPFL make 200k profit

 

50% BEFORE costs - Rangers LOSE 100k

50% AFTER costs - Rangers make 200k

 

Fair and equitable ? My arse. It is, as you say, profiteering.

 

At least if it was AFTER costs then the Club gets to pay its costs first. But this BEFORE costs nonsense means the SPFL GUARANTEE themselves an income at the same time as potentially seeing the Club that provides the income suffer a substantial financial loss. Moronic rule.

[colinstein 294]

It is thievery, plain and simple. I could live with 50% AFTER costs (even then 50% seems excessive). But 50% BEFORE costs ? NO WAY.

 

Look at an example.

 

Revenue of 1 million

Costs of 600k

Profit 400k

 

50% BEFORE costs - SPFL make 500k profit

50% AFTER costs - SPFL make 200k profit

 

50% BEFORE costs - Rangers LOSE 100k

50% AFTER costs - Rangers make 200k

 

Fair and equitable ? My arse. It is, as you say, profiteering.

 

At least if it was AFTER costs then the Club gets to pay its costs first. But this BEFORE costs nonsense means the SPFL GUARANTEE themselves an income at the same time as potentially seeing the Club that provides the income suffer a substantial financial loss. Moronic rule.

 

this looks like a deal straight out of the Mike Ashley mould.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Any discount on tickets for a SOS memeber lol

[BEARGER 1,830]

Any discount on tickets for a SOS memeber lol

 

I cannot see the board charging full price for our home games.

[Rousseau 10,808]

Any means of sticking two-fingers-up at the SPFL/SFA 'cabal' I am in favour of. Well done Rangers.