Darthter 542 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 A/ We can ill-afford to alienate, and possibly lose paying customers. B/ It would show a level of understanding about how dire the situation is, and not a "normal" season. C/ It would give the UOF one less thing in their favour. D/ It's just morally the correct thing to do. How about you give us a few reasons why it's a good thing for the board to do. Saying "that's how it's always been", just doesn't cut it anymore. There's zero net benefit to the club, or the company by being so blatantly obstinate. A) with the exception of payment methods, the club are offering the same options as previous years - IMHO it is the folk trying to withhold the monies that are causing the alienation (on this matter at least...) B) By sticking to the deadlines, it could show that the situation is not as dire as some would have us believe. C) Why would extending any deadlines give UoF something less in their favour?? Ibrox1972 have stated that they cannot guarantee seats (or even ST's) regardless if the security is given. D) IMHO, the correct thing to do is follow the correct procedure for buying ST's (if you want one) & accept the dealines and the possible consequences if you miss them 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Not a chance directors would hand over such an asset to a third party. Dream on............They've a legal responsibility to protect company's assets Lol. They've done it already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 And now they know that the game is up and it won't? No now the club will just lose out altogether unless the club cave. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 They used relatively minor assets to secure some funds....not the clubs 2 main & highest valued assets!!! What's the difference. I thought they were legally bound not to. Ps that was bullshit. They can hand them over. If they won't you have to ask yourself why. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 They used relatively minor assets to secure some funds....not the clubs 2 main & highest valued assets!!! Principle is identical they handed over security over assets in return for cash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,253 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Big, big difference between an empty hoose and carpark being used to secure funding and the stadium & MP. If you can't realise that then..............well I don't know 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Big, big difference between an empty hoose and carpark being used to secure funding and the stadium & MP.If you can't realise that then..............well I don't know Yawn............ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,136 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 There may be a difference in scale but they are still multi-million pound assets so the principle is valid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Big, big difference between an empty hoose and carpark being used to secure funding and the stadium & MP.If you can't realise that then..............well I don't know The empty house and car park cost the company more than Ibrox or Auchenhowie (perhaps even both together) did. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 The board should be embracing the UoF scheme. They have no plans to use the stadium as collateral or to sell it. Fans are deserting in droves and the UoF are trying to get people to buy season books. A sensible board would be saying look. Buy a season book and we will give you ibrox. Secure the home of Rangers. People would flock to the scheme if they knew it would work. Ticket sales would be huge. V The thing is I don't even believe that, after successfully blackmailing the board once into doing something they've always said they'll not do you really think it's just going to end there and they'll be left alone to get on with it? Security will be granted, but then there'll be demands for Wallace to go before money is handed before because of his 'untenable' position etc. It's a slippery slope. 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.