Safety Of Our Fans

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Whether it is or isn't separate revenue is irrelevant there would be no "tax-free" benefit, that said you've almost covered it in the first line of your answer.

The only way not to pay tax on it is to have no profit from it which is what would happen if it was spent on wages/fees etc.

Yeah, I think the tax stuff is a bit moot anyway TBH. It didn't come into play with the announcement. 

[oaksoft]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No one is missrepresenting anyone. This is a comment in an update from the chairman about factual maximum income we can make from given them an extra stand. You've done the maths yourself, you can see it isn't bullshit. 

You are approaching it like GLS has made  a statement of income to Shareholders, he has not in any way, shape or form.

It's no different from saying 'a player is on £50k a week' We know the player won't get £50k a week, we know he'll get taxed. You don't see anyone going 'ah but tax' it's common knowledge. 

In regards to the games, the figures have always been positioned as up to. Why should they only do it as three? 1/4 season fixtures haven't been announced? The figure is speculative so why are they not allowed to speculate on our league position? Yet again it sounds like you're analysing this as reported figures and not a generic statement. 

I'd say It is pretty reserved to say only 60% of fans will be adults and to say a concession will be half the price of adult tickets. 

Your last sentence... I think you maybe have to have a check what 'up to' and it's similar expressions actually means 

I have to applaud your desire to defend what are basically pie in the sky figures (4 games) when there are numbers we can talk with much more certainty (3 games)

You are spinning people a line because you know that will only hear "6 figure sum" and "we could buy two players" and will ignore the "up to" bit. It's corporate bullshit and people are sick and tired of it.

Edited August 15, 2018 by oaksoft

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I guess it will depend on how long the contract is for and how many bidders there are. If there is only one company then it won't necessarily matter how much Saints want. On this point, we cannot be ceratin and anyway, the gains are fairly marginal as your numbers show.

WeeBud has dismantled both of our arguments on tax but I still think claims of 6 figures is seriously spinning what we are actually likely to receive after the cost of doing all of this is taken into account,

Like I say, I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm not claiming to know the ins and outs but I think based on both our stats, the wording of the statement, the fact it is a statement and nothing more, he's very well within his right to claim it could be worth a six figure sum to us. If there was one bidder undercutting us, we could do the catering in house like some other clubs. 

Gains are marginal but again it's a best case scenario. 

Other factors come in as well, post split if the game against us is of significant importance (for both teams if we get top six) are we within our right to make that £27 £30 or higher... I think we are. Again devil's advocate. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

I have to applaud your desire to defend what are basically pie in the sky figures (4 games) when there are numbers we can talk with much more certainty (3 games)

You are spinning people a line because you know that will only hear "6 figure sum" and "we could buy two players" and will ignore the "up to" bit. It's corporate bullshit and people are sick and tired of it.

I'm not speaking with certainty, nothing I have said is with certainty, the simple reason for that is GLS statemenet wasn't certainty and wasn't meant to be. 

I don't genuinely think any fan will be looking at this thinking GLS is saying actual guranteed figures.

Someone is welcome to look but from memory it was something like 'This decison could be worth up to a six figure sum for us' If a fan wants to go from that to 'He's saying we're getting six figures for sure, no we're not' Then that's their call. I think it's a bit silly. 

[oaksoft]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I'm not speaking with certainty, nothing I have said is with certainty, the simple reason for that is GLS statemenet wasn't certainty and wasn't meant to be. 

I don't genuinely think any fan will be looking at this thinking GLS is saying actual guranteed figures.

Someone is welcome to look but from memory it was something like 'This decison could be worth up to a six figure sum for us' If a fan wants to go from that to 'He's saying we're getting six figures for sure, no we're not' Then that's their call. I think it's a bit silly. 

I know you are not. I said that already. Just before I said we COULD be talking with more certainty.

You are completely over estimating the financial literacy of the average person in the street.

You are also over estimating the ability of the average person to interpret information presented to them.

People suffer from cognitive bias. They will unconsciously see and hear whatever suits them. Marketing and advertising could not work without it.

Businesses have been taking advantage of that for centuries.

Edited August 15, 2018 by oaksoft

[shull]

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

Who knows.... but top 6 would be good. 

We should be aiming for higher than second place. 

[St.Ricky]

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I know you are not. I said that already. Just before I said we COULD be talking with more certainty.

You are completely over estimating the financial literacy of the average person in the street.

You are also over estimating the ability of the average person to interpret information presented to them.

People suffer from cognitive bias. They will unconsciously see and hear whatever suits them. Marketing and advertising could not work without it.

Businesses have been taking advantage of that for centuries.

Hard to disagree.

[oaksoft]

Cognitive bias is why clubs have to be EXTREMELY careful when talking to the media because the average person simply cannot be trusted to be a reasonable person.

Some classic examples are as follows:

 Fitz saying we wanted to win the Premier League in 2019 or whatever. A reasonable person knows he was being aspirational regardless of how he phrased it but your average person is thick as shit and interpreted his words literally, using it repeatedly as a weapon to have a dig at him ever since.

Stubbs talked about marquee signings. Reasonable people lnew it was also aspirational and that he was working very hard on deals but there was no guarantee of success. Some idiots decided his words were to be treated literally and to this day there are still people trying to punish him for failing to deliver it.

The list of examples is endless.

It happens everywhere. Andy Murray is still accused by people of being anti English because he made a joke with Tim Henman about Anyone But England. Around a decade later people still hate him for it and are absolutely covinced he hates the English.

Honestly, I dont know how half of these people get through a day without killing themselves or those around them.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by oaksoft

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Cognitive bias is why clubs have to be EXTREMELY careful when talking to the media because the average person simply cannot be trusted to be a reasonable person.

Some classic examples are as follows:

 Fitz saying we wanted to win the Premier League in 2019 or whatever. A reasonable person knows he was being aspirational regardless of how he phrased it but your average person is thick as shit and interpreted his words literally, using it repeatedly as a weapon to have a dig at him ever since.

Stubbs talked about marquee signings. Reasonable people lnew it was also aspirational and that he was working very hard on deals but there was no guarantee of success. Some idiots decided his words were to be treated literally and we to this day there are still people trying to punish him for failing to deliver it.

The list of examples is endless.

Honestly, I dont know how half of these people get through a day without killing themselves or those around them.

 

I must admit, you really are an utter cnut of a person.

It's no wonder you have no friends or any type of social life, sad but it's what you deserve. 

[oaksoft]

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I must admit, you really are an utter cnut of a person.

It's no wonder you have no friends or any type of social life, sad but it's what you deserve. 

You are the one going online to post personal abuse lkke this but apparently it is ME who is the cnut of a person. 

Lovely. This may shock you but I can live without the conpany of people who deliberately post stuff like you do.

Thank you for demonstrating beyond all doubt that my words touched a nerve with you. Only a stupid person would willingly volunteer that they feel personally upset by what someone has said on an anonymous online forum. Oh wait.......

Edited August 15, 2018 by oaksoft

[shull]

The Masses Are Asses 

[faraway saint]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Cognitive bias is why clubs have to be EXTREMELY careful when talking to the media because the average person simply cannot be trusted to be a reasonable person.

Some classic examples are as follows:

 Fitz saying we wanted to win the Premier League in 2019 or whatever. A reasonable person knows he was being aspirational regardless of how he phrased it but your average person is thick as shit and interpreted his words literally, using it repeatedly as a weapon to have a dig at him ever since.

Stubbs talked about marquee signings. Reasonable people lnew it was also aspirational and that he was working very hard on deals but there was no guarantee of success. Some idiots decided his words were to be treated literally and to this day there are still people trying to punish him for failing to deliver it.

The list of examples is endless.

It happens everywhere. Andy Murray is still accused by people of being anti English because he made a joke with Tim Henman about Anyone But England. Around a decade later people still hate him for it and are absolutely covinced he hates the English.

Honestly, I dont know how half of these people get through a day without killing themselves or those around them.

 

Spellchekc brokied? 

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are the one going online to post personal abuse lkke this but apparently it is ME who is the cnut of a person. 

Lovely. This may shock you but I can live without the conpany of people who deliberately post stuff like you do.

Thank you for demonstrating beyond all doubt that my words touched a nerve with you. Only a stupid person would willingly volunteer that they feel personally upset by what someone has said on an anonymous online forum. Oh wait.......

Oh the fecking irony. 

Upset?  Looks like you're the one who's shaking with rage by the amount of spelling errors, ya cnut.  

[St.Ricky]

12 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Spellchekc brokied? 

Oh the fecking irony. 

Upset?  Looks like you're the one who's shaking with rage by the amount of spelling errors, ya cnut.  

List of giveaways that the argument has been lost include. 

1 Resorting to insults

2 Use of expletives (disguised or otherwise) 

3 Point out typing,  spelling or predictive text errors. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by St.Ricky

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

List of giveaways that the argument has been lost include. 

1 Resorting to insuots

2 Use of expletives (disguised or otherwise) 

3 Point out typing,  spelling or predictive text errors. 

Argument? 

Away and take yer face for shite, ya buffoon. 

PS I didnae point out your spelling error, you make them all the time. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by faraway saint

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Argument? 

Away and take yer face for shite, ya buffoon. 

There you go again Mr F Man

You lose it sooooo easily. 

Like taking candy from a baby. 

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

There you go again Mr F Man

You lose it sooooo easily. 

Like taking candy from a baby. 

You mean like me counting to 20 before you couldn't wait to jump in? 

Dear oh dear, simple minds right enough.

[St.Ricky]

22 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

You mean like me counting to 20 before you couldn't wait to jump in? 

Dear oh dear, simple minds right enough.

I would never call you simple.

Moronic in both attitude and behaviour is much closer to the truth.

But. ..... you really are far too easy to poke with a stick and get a reaction from.

Edited August 15, 2018 by St.Ricky

[Tommy]

Although they are getting an extra stand, they are really only getting 800 more seats than they normally get that will only be worth an extra 16K a game more to us than we normally get after VAT. Is that that 16K to us worth the hassle and if not, maybe we would have been better just giving them the end of the west stand as normal and put the singing boys into the family stand. Now away to put my tin hat on

[shull]

On 8/14/2018 at 6:29 PM, faraway saint said:

I love the forum.........................full of fecking mad people, all trying to outdo each other. 

WGAF. 

I agree , ye auld dunderheid. 

[waldorf34]

14 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I'm not speaking with certainty, nothing I have said is with certainty, the simple reason for that is GLS statemenet wasn't certainty and wasn't meant to be. 

I don't genuinely think any fan will be looking at this thinking GLS is saying actual guranteed figures.

Someone is welcome to look but from memory it was something like 'This decison could be worth up to a six figure sum for us' If a fan wants to go from that to 'He's saying we're getting six figures for sure, no we're not' Then that's their call. I think it's a bit silly. 

It may be worth 6 figures but with our full support behind us we may nick a point  or too and move up a place in the league and that would also be worth six figures. Besides all that why would any same person move your own supporters to allow in sectarian chanting thugs ?

Edited August 16, 2018 by waldorf34

[bazil85]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I know you are not. I said that already. Just before I said we COULD be talking with more certainty.

You are completely over estimating the financial literacy of the average person in the street.

You are also over estimating the ability of the average person to interpret information presented to them.

People suffer from cognitive bias. They will unconsciously see and hear whatever suits them. Marketing and advertising could not work without it.

Businesses have been taking advantage of that for centuries.

I'm not sure how we could talk with more certainty. Do you know for certainty that we won't get top six? One of them won't get top six? They won't fill both those stands? The ticket prices? They will retain profit? I think it's more you want to underestimate. I mean the board could of said this will be worth 'at least X amount' for me that opens up a can of worms. 

Following two sentences, I am not, that's a bit derogitive of you to say. You're the first fan I've seen mention such issue over the cost (even after a pretty clear eplanation dare I say) and if fans wanted it explained I'm sure there are plenty of people that could do what has been done on here. Even if it was true about presenting information, what steps could we take to stop that? Just never announce anything with finance attached? 

I agree with you, TBH you've been a perfect example of cognative bias here. Either failing to, or refusing to accept that 'up to' figures are wideley used and a part of life. It isn't automatically a bad thing IMO.

I agree they can be used poorly but I would be very surprised if we had them at our stadium four times and the additional revenue was less than £100k. 

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, renfrew said:

Although they are getting an extra stand, they are really only getting 800 more seats than they normally get that will only be worth an extra 16K a game more to us than we normally get after VAT. Is that that 16K to us worth the hassle and if not, maybe we would have been better just giving them the end of the west stand as normal and put the singing boys into the family stand. Now away to put my tin hat on

It was presented as a solution to not given up W6 & 7. If we had, we'd of been having similar conversations. The figures have been given one stand Vs given two. 

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I'm not sure how we could talk with more certainty. Do you know for certainty that we won't get top six? One of them won't get top six? They won't fill both those stands? The ticket prices? They will retain profit? I think it's more you want to underestimate. I mean the board could of said this will be worth 'at least X amount' for me that opens up a can of worms. 

Following two sentences, I am not, that's a bit derogitive of you to say. You're the first fan I've seen mention such issue over the cost (even after a pretty clear eplanation dare I say) and if fans wanted it explained I'm sure there are plenty of people that could do what has been done on here. Even if it was true about presenting information, what steps could we take to stop that? Just never announce anything with finance attached? 

I agree with you, TBH you've been a perfect example of cognative bias here. Either failing to, or refusing to accept that 'up to' figures are wideley used and a part of life. It isn't automatically a bad thing IMO.

I agree they can be used poorly but I would be very surprised if we had them at our stadium four times and the additional revenue was less than £100k. 

It's pretty clear that we are not going to agree so let's wait and see what happens.

Our usual crowd at home to the OF is about 6000-6200 if I remember correctly.

To be on target to reach an extra £100k which can be spent on the two players you have been spinning us a line about, this great experiment will need to see an increased attendance to around 7500. Otherwise we will have inconvenienced a large number of hard core fans (season ticket holders in the South Stand) and hugely embarassed the wider support for absolutely f**k all.

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It's pretty clear that we are not going to agree so let's wait and see what happens.

Our usual crowd at home to the OF is about 6000-6200 if I remember correctly.

To be on target to reach an extra £100k which can be spent on the two players you have been spinning us a line about, this great experiment will need to see an increased attendance to around 7500. Otherwise we will have inconvenienced a large number of hard core fans (season ticket holders in the South Stand) and hugely embarassed the wider support for absolutely f**k all.

This is the thing, I don't think it's a matter of agreeing at all. I would love them not to be getting the second stand, I simply think it's a necessary evil while we aren't getting it filled by St Mirren fans.

This is purely a question of maths IMO. Can GLS back-up a claim of 'up to six figure more income' mathematically he can. Our figures both agree with each other. If you think he's wrong to do that or I think it's fine is completely irrelevant, that's where opinion comes in and I'm not questioning your opinion at all. 

Your last paragraph is again matter of opinion on what extra income we might get and again I'm not questioning it. Simply pointing out that the information can be justified, whether anyone likes it or not. 

Regarding the extra players, it's not spin, here are the stats. They're also confirmed on other sources. 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-rangers-weekly-wages-revealed-11596087 

Your point about 'hugley embarassed wider support' is another matter of opinion. Many (including me) accept the justification and it's still not f**k all, even at the lowest estimates. 

[Lord Pityme]

I think the Celtic game will be lucky to pull in more than the Dundee opener!