BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 thousands autorenewed before the 120 days are up and i've yet to see one person who knew it was going to happen. QUOTE] But that's not true is it GS, anyone who signed up to auto renew last year or in previous years knew they would be auto renewed this year and they have 19 days to change their mind. I don't see what's wrong with that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 thousands autorenewed before the 120 days are up and i've yet to see one person who knew it was going to happen. QUOTE] But that's not true is it GS, anyone who signed up to auto renew last year or in previous years knew they would be auto renewed this year and they have 19 days to change their mind. I don't see what's wrong with that. Yes but even you didn't know you were on autorenew. Many others are the same. Ppi claims all over again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Absolutely not. They have broken the law if they have, Anyway, I think those on auto get the 'thank you' e mail, not the begging one. I'm sure you'll let them know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Not sure if serious, Andrew. Well, he got a few goals when we were struggling to win a good few games. And he was the only bugger who could defend balls into the box as well. Probably we would have won the league without him but he certainly helped. Sorry for the late reply but I've been listening with a sardonic smile to Spence on the radio desperately trying to explain away celtc employing a racist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Yes but even you didn't know you were on autorenew. Many others are the same. Can I claim I forgot due to old age. I think it comes into the category "knew or ought to have known". Please do not start me on PPI or we'll be here all night. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 The solution to the financial crisis at our club is simple. The shareholders and their appointed stooges on the board are responsible for the recent £50 million cash burn. So they should have a rights issue, which everyone knows is coming anyway. Wrong. So why not? Because then, the existing shareholders will have to put in the funds to fix their, ahem, wrongdoings. Cannot have them paying for that via a rights issue. So simply have a share issue then, underwritten by DK. He is more than willing. Wrong. The existing shareholders may then have their power diluted. Cannot have that. So blackmail the punters emotionally and get them to pay for it again seems to be the answer. And get some Gers men to help. Bingo. Next step may be to do a Hearts. Sell season tickets because you are skint, use it to pay back the loans and trade pre season, then pull the plug. Gives them time to work with the assets and the pre-pack and only the pesky punters and minority, out of the clique shareholders lose out. I must say, the Hearts master stroke last season, using early ST sales to tide them over until the day after the spl ended the oldco and rules set up was brilliant. Used up all the ST money even before the season started and got the admin deduction in the spfl top tier. Beware. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTinMan99 0 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Yes but even you didn't know you were on autorenew. Many others are the same. Ppi claims all over again. Depends if it was a 'tick box for auto-renew', or 'un-tick box to not auto-renew'. The former is acceptable, the latter isn't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 The solution to the financial crisis at our club is simple. The shareholders and their appointed stooges on the board are responsible for the recent £50 million cash burn. So they should have a rights issue, which everyone knows is coming anyway. Wrong. So why not? Because then, the existing shareholders will have to put in the funds to fix their, ahem, wrongdoings. Cannot have them paying for that via a rights issue. So simply have a share issue then, underwritten by DK. He is more than willing. Wrong. The existing shareholders may then have their power diluted. Cannot have that. So blackmail the punters emotionally and get them to pay for it again seems to be the answer. And get some Gers men to help. Bingo. Next step may be to do a Hearts. Sell season tickets because you are skint, use it to pay back the loans and trade pre season, then pull the plug. Gives them time to work with the assets and the pre-pack and only the pesky punters and minority, out of the clique shareholders lose out. I must say, the Hearts master stroke last season, using early ST sales to tide them over until the day after the spl ended the oldco and rules set up was brilliant. Used up all the ST money even before the season started and got the admin deduction in the spfl top tier. Beware. How do you know there won't be a rights issue and that Mr King won't get a share of it if he wants it? As to Hearts, they had a brilliant lawyer; happens to be the same chap who got Messrs Naismith and Whittaker out of Ibrox free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Depends if it was a 'tick box for auto-renew', or 'un-tick box to not auto-renew'. The former is acceptable, the latter isn't. Exactly mate and many many people don't remember ticking a box. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Depends if it was a 'tick box for auto-renew', or 'un-tick box to not auto-renew'. The former is acceptable, the latter isn't. I am pretty well convinced it was the former. 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.