BrahimHemdani

Celtic are exactly 100 higher, 44,982; but our highest 49,995 v Hibs is higher than their highest 48,558. The only Clubs in the UK higher than the old firm are Man Utd 75,339, Arsenal 59,940, Man City 53,889 and Newcastle Utd 49,187. Liverpool, Sunderland and Chelsea are the only others to average 40,000+ The EPL average is only 36,345. http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-2015-2016/1/

Any loss is a concern but losing £500,000 is much better than losing £5m. Of course, it shouldn't be a worry at all because Mr King will bail us out of his petty cash. We are still losing money because of onerous contracts and paying players Premier+ wages when we are a Championship i.e. 2nd division Club with 2nd divison income in terms of ticket prices, little or no TV money etc. Also the loss for the season will be higher because there is very little revenue in the second half and our expenditure on player wages etc is going up with new contracts and new signings. FI Our average attendance this season is 44,882 http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/club_records_league_attendance.php

Yes it will MB but it's not academic now and hasn't been for the past two years and the failure to disclose the number obviously begs the question why? The answer has typically been obfuscation like "why should we", "it's irrelevant" etc. BTW this is not a one way street, I steadfastly pursued RF to disclose numbers in the early days until eventually they put it up on the site. The big difference of course is that all RF members are paying donations so it is relatively easy to estimate that they are bringing in about £150,000 per month (at an average £10+) but it is impossible to estimate a figure for the RST because they won't disclose how many of the 6,000 are paying into BR.

I've asked this question here and elswhere on several occasions over the past 2 years and all one ever gets is obfuscation of the type put out by Bearman; at least plgsarmy just says she's not telling. Perhaps if we ply her with enough drink at the dinner she'll give up this big secret :devil:

I agree that the RST are to be congratulated on a large increase in numbers just as RF have gone from a standing start to almost 14,000. Together they would appear to have some 20,000 members but allowing for overlap perhaps 17,000 - 18,000 and combined I understand that they have more than 5% of the shares, which is a very strong foundation. I just think it's unfortunate that the RST won't disclose how many members are actually contributing to the BR scheme. If they were to do so it would be easier to estimate if a 25% shareholding was a realistic objective for the combined share buying entity.

They may have 6,250 members which is probably 5/6 times what they had in 2010/11 but I don't think they have anyhting like that number paying monthly into Buy Rangers.

One can only hope the perpetrators of this horrific murder are brought to justice.

You are by no means being pedantic, there should be a quick and simple method of changing your password. It is pleasing to note that you were able to do that with RF but they are by no means above reproach: a great deal of information on their web site is way out of date, they haven't published Minutes for almost two years, by general consensus they mismanaged the recent poll about a loan and Mr Blair has not replied to my email in that respect (though doubtless he has his hands full).

And I agreed with you even in the case of a verbal contract, although you would have to give the car salesman the opportunity to fix any defects. Again, I would respectfully suggest that you are asserting as fact that which you can only assume, namely that "We didn't just stop making payments to the chancers who own the wi-fi. We'll have told them to fix it. When they didn't they'll have received notice that we don't want it." This assumes two things (a) the wifi supplied and fitted was not as specified in the contract and (b) we did indeed give the supplier sufficient opportunity to fix it. One certainly hopes you are correct but we will not know that for sure till the relevant documents are produced in evidence.

This is as clear an admission as you're likely to get that the whole process was mismanaged.

As a reminder, the last date for cancellations is 6.00pm on Saturday 23 January 2016. There will be no refunds after that time, other than in exceptional circumstances, such as your wife crashes the car and you have to leave at half time (sic)

14/01/2016 glasgowbear (non member) BGC £35.00 BALANCE £559.15 Please note the above includes a £5.00 donation to the kitty. That's 31 fully paid up now + the two speakers; so to all intents and purposes the dinner is now SOLD OUT. However, I will be going in to finalise details this Saturday, so if there are any latecomers still wanting to go please PM me and I'll see what I can do.

How we can keep Zelalem on £6,500 per week of his £18,000 with Arsenal and let Law (presumably on similar money) go is beyond me. Law was outstanding in his two recent starts.

I think most people agree with that and if we had had a back up he may well have been dropped/rested a while back although he seems to have had resurgence in the last couple of games. However, Ryan Sinnamon is back now and deserves a chance. Welcome to the forum, consider meeting fellow Gersnetters at the 4th Semi Annual Gersnet Dinner with Colin Stein and Willie Johnston on the 30th! http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?74883-The-4th-Gersnet-Dinner-on-30-January-2016-Featuring-Willie-Johnston-amp-Colin-Stein

Again, with respect, GS, we've not seen proof either way. the press release doesn't prove what was in the contract.

Alright, you can have three :cheers:

There's a limit of two pints per person :cheers:

Two remaining guests from the waiting list now confirmed by email, paying tomorrow, so that will be 31 + the two speakers. I can squeeze another couple in as both Christine and Alison have volunteered to take guys on their knees.

No doubt all will be revealed in due course.

The supplier will have the signed contracts one assumes.

The system may well have been a waste of time or at least money that we could better spend elsewhere but I doubt such arguments would provide a reasonable defence.

I'm not a lawyer Boabie but I think you might need a witness to the conversation (unless it was undisputed) but broadly my understanding is that in Scotland a verbal contract is binding (although there are some exceptions e.g. business contracts, trusts, land etc). A verbal contract exists if one party makes an offer and the offer party accepts it. In your (hypothetical I assume) case I think you would have to give the garage an opportunity to repair the car. If Rangers took the view that the system didn't operate as per contract then I would think they would need to give the company a fair opportunity to remedy the situation and only if they failed to do so or said there was nothing wrong with it would it be reasonable to withhold payment.

I'm not sure if a press statement has any legal validity but I'm certain that the contract would take precedence. I'd be shocked if the contract stated or implied that 50,000 people could get online inside the stadium at the same time. Obviously if it does and Rangers can prove that they can't then we'll be a long way to winning the case and vice versa. If there are legitimate grievances with the operation of the system in terms of what was contracted then fair enough; but I have to say that this smacks of let's see if we can find a way out of this unnecessary expense An out of court settlement might be the best way out, otherwise the lawyers will be the only winners.

Agreed, I could have won that case; the TUPE Regs are clear, the employees had the right to proper notice which they didn't get and the right to reject the new contract which they did. Getting Dunfermline reinstated in the SC after playing a suspended player amongst other things was something else entirely.

Yes but with respect, it doesn't say nor if I was representing them would I accept that it implies that all 50,000 people would be able to get online at the same time which appears to be part of Rangers defence. As I say I am anything but an expert in this field but is it reasonable to expect 50,000 people to get online inside a stadium at the same time?