Jump to content

 

 

Mountain Bear

Members
  • Posts

    1,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mountain Bear

  1. Can't see how club could sell your seat unless told in advance that you are not attending!!

     

    That's how the re-ticketing scheme works, if you can't make a specific game, you tell the club in advance and they re-sell the seat.

     

    You get a discount towards your next season ticket and everyone wins.

     

     

     

  2. It is very important that we have match day tickets available for sale match by match. We must be able to accomodate tourists who are drawn to visit our city and our club. If they cant get in to Ibrox they may end up elsewhere.......

     

    Most EPL clubs, especially in the big cities, have hundreds, perhaps thousands of "fans" coming once or twice a year from abroad to see the games live. If we were completely sold out we would lose this option to sell to future fans or those who have Rangers as a favourite second club.

     

    We must also take into account the fans who cannot afford a season ticket but are nevertheless just as passionate about our club and want to attend as many games as they can find the cash for. We must never alienate working class football fans just so we can get a few extra quid in August.

     

    If we can get the secondary ticketing working properly it would be very helpful to all categories of non-season ticket fans mentioned above, but IMO we should be keeping some back as a principle.

     

    Don't disagree TB. Just a question of how many.

     

    There are almost always spare seats in the corners of the Clubdeck even on busy nights and if we genuinely do sell out regularly, then the club can adjust the incentives around secondary ticketing to make it more attractive - that's a real win / win / win for ST holders, occasional fans and the Club.

     

     

     

  3. Can only assume that the club see it as guaranteed money. John Giligan at last years RST said that they would sell as many as was possible in answer to them getting the whole Broomie. Dave King has now changed that position in his answers to fans a few weeks back. Looks like they are just going for the maximum number of ST's as possible.

     

    Cashflow - money up front is better for the club than a drip feed from individual games.

     

    Plus, it means that they're guaranteed to sell the tickets for end of season games which might end up being meaningless.

     

     

     

     

  4. Hi Boabie.

     

    You are correct in what you are saying. I haven't paid in to a fan scheme.

     

    The questions I collated were questions that had been asked over a period of time to Greg Marshall over a few threads on RM the preceding month or so.

    I respect Greg highly for his attempts at fielding so many questions and how he handled the slanderous blog about him as well.

     

    This whole thread is the very definition of making a mountain out of a molehill.

     

    If I hadn't paid into any fan groups previously, there's no way I would have the time or motivation for such protracted public dialogue over a trivial slight from an organisation I had nothing to do with.

     

     

     

     

  5. Pete , to an extent I agree with you , where I completely disagree is where you state I have been against this from the start .

     

    At the start of RF we were promised again and again that this very scenario could never happen because of the way RF was set up, and the way the RST model was set up , that was a lie .

     

    We were then told that any new group would be the same as RF , ie, totally independent of the club , again a lie , at the recent meeting of club172 with RSCs , Martin Stenhouse a club employee , stated that club1872 was a club idea .

     

    When at the very start of this the conflict of interest points were raised , we were told we didn't know what we were talking about , when it was pointed out they were rushing this , we were told we didn't know what we were talking about , when we asked what would be the structure of the new group , we were told they didn't have one but not to worry they would work it out later on .

     

    This is a scheme with hundreds of thousands of pounds in its accounts , it's not a wee bowling club committee , there are regulations that cover this and people better get to grips with this point and rapido .

     

    We were never told there would be an unelected working group set up to over see every aspect of the new group , why , because all hell would have broken out .

     

    The worst thing is that now it's done , all the figureheads have disappeared of social media , you can't get them for love nor money , yet prior to the change every forum was polluted with propaganda about how brilliant this was , this new scheme has been in effect active for months now yet the membership has decreased , it's no bloody wonder .

     

    The word "lie" is being used pretty liberally around this subject.

     

    If a club employee did say Club1872 was the Club's idea (and if you say so, that's good enough for me RBR), that still doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) independent. It might simply mean that the Club encouraged discussions as it preferred to deal with a single fans group, which would be quite understandable. Certainly doesn't amount to evidence of lying.

     

    I've seen similar on Twitter this week regarding Lionbrand - accusations about lying, based on a lack of clarity over the exact route by which the money raised gets to the Club.

     

    I'm sure there are some valid issues being raised and that mistakes have been made, but I'm equally sure that some folk (not you RBR) are looking for any excuse to put the boot in and ensure Club1872 fails.

     

    Fresh elections can't come soon enough IMHO.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  6. Hi Chris,

     

    You are probably aware that I have been communicating with a fellow WP member over email in regards to the email response and Twitter blocking that ensued.

     

    I have spoken in length to her, along with an RM moderator and said WP member has stated that an email policy document is being created to ensure this does not happen again. It is clear that said WP member know's who responded to me, and was responsible for being blocked on Twitter. I commented on RM that day about a post on the C1872 twitter page - I had only ever tweeted the old RST twitter handle once, back in 2015 asking whether RF/RST could ever join forces.

     

    My initial email was ignored, and then my chaser (after Greg Marshall said to resend) was answered very promptly. At around 3.30pm that day I was blocked by the C1872 handle. On the 22nd June, I woke up to an email sent at 3:54am - still no response to my email on who has access to your mailbox at this time - and I was then unblocked from this.

     

    You'll have seen the questions. There was nothing provocative, or untoward. I wasn't rude, and had a genuine interest as Greg couldn't answer everything I was asking him.

     

    It won't happen, but the person/s should bite the bullet, admit they've been a bit daft and apologise for it. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. But when I am being told, and I quote "Naming and shaming a person would be in anyone's interests" it makes me question why C1872 would want to keep someone who does this sort of thing.

     

    C1872 has phenomenal potential, but stuff like this puts people off and causes fractions.

     

    I have offered my email address out to all on the WP via the person I have been communicating with so that said person can apologise to me. I won't spill who it is - but I would draw a line under it if the person did the right thing.

     

    I hope you agree.

     

    Thanks,

    BlueGates

     

    Welcome BlueGates.

     

    Sounds like a very sensible way forward.

     

     

     

  7. While I like the reasoning behind this Q&A, has he actually said ANYTHING of any value in 9 releases? I'm struggling to recall anything of any note. The scouting one was interesting but nothing new to those who have been paying attention.

     

    Release #10 certainly ticked the right boxes for me - informative & reassuringly thorough.

     

     

     

     

  8. I always had the impression that Hibs were about the worst in Scotland for the violence of their "casuals" - The Capital City Service (CCS). Surely strict liability would affect them more than anyone?

     

    I think the main outcome of strict liability would be opposition fans with their ears glued to the radio / TV, desperately trying to hear things to be offended by.

     

     

     

     

     

  9. The current trend seems to be a general increase in 'trouble' or anti-social behaviour at the football (I'd class trouble as violence and A-SB as other) and it wouldn't surprise me greatly if as you say the Scottish Government discussed/try to implement more ineffective legislation that would actually make matters worse.

     

    What should be pushed for within or at the edges of the independent commission is getting rid of the current unworkable legislation that has the Polis more interested in song lyrics and videos. Disband the 'Thought Police' Dept., get rid of the police spindoctors, do your job and take responsibility where necessary instead of making up excuses.

     

    Agreed. Unfortunately, Saturday's events have given the Scot Gov an excuse to defend the hugely flawed 2012 Act.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  10. That's a much more reasonable post neutralscot.

     

    Strict liability wont happen because if it did there would, quite simply, be no game left in Scotland.

     

    Not sure how you could possibly have confused "Wallace swung at a fan" with "Fan had a swing at Wallace" - that looks very disingenuous to me.

     

    You may be right about sporting sanctions - but UEFA set a precedent long ago by banning RFC from Europe for the CWC pitch invasion and subsequent attck on our fans by Fascist Franco troops.

     

    The SFA have the power to send a real message here. It will be an absolute abomination if this goes without punishment to HIbs whilst oldco RFC had to relinquish prize monies to obtain a license due to the actions of an alleged criminal. It is abhorrent - but only in compliant Scotland will Rangers be demonized at will whilst the facts show otherwise.

     

    I didn't mind your previous nonsense about training facilities etc - simply because it was nonsense as I actually PROVED to you as my father in law consulted Hibs on their training pitches and concluded they were shite - and he is one of the best groundsmen in the country.....

     

    However, I will ALWAYS defend the truth in the face of lies - even if those lies are being peddled by my own. The fact you suggested Wallace struck out raised my ire immediately. The fact you didn't make mention of the multiple other assaults is disappointing.

     

    However, the above post is a little more conciliatory - sadly, many of your fellow Hibs fans have burned that bridge for at least a generation if not more.

     

    I'm sure that Neutralscot can stand up for himself, but I interpreted his original post about Wallace as a typo (ie "Wallace had a swing [aimed] at him"). Made a lot more sense than the literal text.

     

    As for strict liability - while I agree clubs would never vote for it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Scottish Gov demanded its introduction, with the threat of even more draconian criminal sanctions if they are ignored.

     

     

     

  11. I remember reading about a young Stephen Hendry playing a series of matches against the then no.1 Steve Davis.

     

    He lost the lot, but his development benefited massively and he never looked back.

     

    I think if you're good enough, have a winner's self belief to start with and know why you're being put in that position, then losing doesn't become a habit, but more of a right of passage.

  12. James McArthur was 23 when he went to Wigan - not that different.

     

    As he shares the same name as my eldest son, I've taken more interest in Crawford's career than l'd normally do with a non Rangers player.

     

    He was the creative spark in a very decent Hamilton side under Alex Neil and has added goals to his game recently (10 in 38 last year - a good return from midfield).

     

    I rate him fairly highly and we've bought far worse in the past, when we had much more money to throw around.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.