Season Tickets

[Doakes]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

Have a drink. 

I'm aff it  all these big games and celebrations take it out of you 

[bazil85]

59 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

It is from the club website ST announcement. 

Surely you aren’t suggesting that we should believe some club announcements but not others. 

I updated to say I had seen it. The reality is the statement doesn’t contradict the old one. Just because it doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean the previous one isn’t also correct.

Feel free to quote the part where GLS corrected himself on income and he ‘wouldn’t’ change the stand arrangement if we got enough season ticket holders though 

[bazil85]

52 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So that clarifies it.

Scott has used the comparison of 2 stands against a single stand PLUS the W6/W7 area.

Exactly as everyone bar a single bloody minded poster had thought was the reasonable comparison to make.

Clarity!

Finally!

The lengths some people will spin after being proven wrong 

[DumboBud]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I updated to say I had seen it. The reality is the statement doesn’t contradict the old one. Just because it doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean the previous one isn’t also correct.

Feel free to quote the part where GLS corrected himself on income and he ‘wouldn’t’ change the stand arrangement if we got enough season ticket holders though 

Last year the justification was a six figure windfall, this year it is to mitigate against a loss of revenue...... and that isn’t contradictory? 

Even for you that is a stretch.

I can only speculate but I don’t think it is out with the bounds of possibility is that this change of stance has come about from a large number of supporters calling the club out on this inaccuracy.  

I obviously can’t  quote where GLS has said he wouldn’t change the arrangement if we sold enough ST’s, mainly because at no time has he said that he would do this or that any change to the board decision for this season is a possibility. 

TBH I don’t like the idea that this is GLS said this or decided that..... the club has a number of directors and it is a club decision. 

[bender rodriguez]

We should maybe do something like we did with west. An incentive if we sell season tickets for say over 50% of the south stands capacity we only have the away supports in north.

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

Last year the justification was a six figure windfall, this year it is to mitigate against a loss of revenue...... and that isn’t contradictory? 

Even for you that is a stretch.

I can only speculate but I don’t think it is out with the bounds of possibility is that this change of stance has come about from a large number of supporters calling the club out on this inaccuracy.  

I obviously can’t  quote where GLS has said he wouldn’t change the arrangement if we sold enough ST’s, mainly because at no time has he said that he would do this or that any change to the board decision for this season is a possibility. 

TBH I don’t like the idea that this is GLS said this or decided that..... the club has a number of directors and it is a club decision. 

So you think giving Rangers and Celtic 100s more seats will only negate a situation where we give them 100s less seats? You can’t be serious with that, where is the difference in tickets sold money going then? That just doesn’t make mathematical sense at all. 

You're really clutching at straws that one sentence in this statement is him completely changing his stance from a previous statement last month. On top of the maths making no sense, they aren’t contradicting statements 

as for the two stand arrangement, he has said it would get reviewed if our ticket sales go up. Was in April’s update. 

[jaybee]

20 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I updated to say I had seen it. The reality is the statement doesn’t contradict the old one. Just because it doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean the previous one isn’t also correct.

Feel free to quote the part where GLS corrected himself on income and he ‘wouldn’t’ change the stand arrangement if we got enough season ticket holders though 

Last year the justification was a six figure windfall, this year it is to mitigate against a loss of revenue...... and that isn’t contradictory? 

Even for you that is a stretch.

I can only speculate but I don’t think it is out with the bounds of possibility is that this change of stance has come about from a large number of supporters calling the club out on this inaccuracy.  

I obviously can’t  quote where GLS has said he wouldn’t change the arrangement if we sold enough ST’s, mainly because at no time has he said that he would do this or that any change to the board decision for this season is a possibility. 

TBH I don’t like the idea that this is GLS said this or decided that..... the club has a number of directors and it is a club decision. 

Is it, my understanding of directors (and I am one by the way) is that the board will consider 'issues' and offer advice as to options available and perhaps even suggest a prefered option, however; when an individual has a majority shareholding, he or she can decide if they wish to follow that advice ............. or not.  Ultimately a club decision can be taken by the owner surely?  Or do you know something which I don't?

[antrin]

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So you think giving Rangers and Celtic 100s more seats will only negate a situation where we give them 100s less seats? You can’t be serious with that, where is the difference in tickets sold money going then? That just doesn’t make mathematical sense at all. 

You're really clutching at straws that one sentence in this statement is him completely changing his stance from a previous statement last month. On top of the maths making no sense, they aren’t contradicting statements 

as for the two stand arrangement, he has said it would get reviewed if our ticket sales go up. Was in April’s update. 

Arithmetical, bazil!

arithmetic, too.

 

We've been here before, I fear. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by antrin
Is this like 'creaming it' for a typo? :unsure:

[BuddieinEK]

I’m just impressed this has been posted for over an hour and no one has negatively mentioned the bigots in two stands.... are we seeing a move away from our St Moan mentality finally? 

Geez... YOU were first to mention it! You just HAD to, didn't you?
YOU brought it up. Proud?
Master baiter!

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Is it, my understanding of directors (and I am one by the way) is that the board will consider 'issues' and offer advice as to options available and perhaps even suggest a prefered option, however; when an individual has a majority shareholding, he or she can decide if they wish to follow that advice ............. or not.  Ultimately a club decision can be taken by the owner surely?  Or do you know something which I don't?

Not sure what you’re referring to

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, antrin said:

Arithmetical, bazil!

arithmetic, too.

 

We've been here before, I fear. 

We have yes, good input 

 

[DumboBud]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So you think giving Rangers and Celtic 100s more seats will only negate a situation where we give them 100s less seats? You can’t be serious with that, where is the difference in tickets sold money going then? That just doesn’t make mathematical sense at all. 

You're really clutching at straws that one sentence in this statement is him completely changing his stance from a previous statement last month. On top of the maths making no sense, they aren’t contradicting statements 

as for the two stand arrangement, he has said it would get reviewed if our ticket sales go up. Was in April’s update. 

The fact is that the club statement of 6 figure windfall from last year has been debunked and has led them to change their stance this year. Not hard to work that out especially as the club now have the info on extra costs and substituted/ lost income that this decision cost. 

Would have been better all round if they had played straight from the start. 

There is absolutely nothing in the statement to suggest that there is even going to be a review of this arrangement for the coming season, regardless of how many tickets we sell. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

Geez... YOU were first to mention it! You just HAD to, didn't you?
YOU brought it up. Proud?
Master baiter!

In a positive fashion of course. What a surprise the triggered trio come out 

[BuddieinEK]

The lengths some people will spin after being proven wrong [emoji38]

But he is 100% correct.... Unless you are referring to your own spin, which even GLS is showing up now! [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[bazil85]

Just now, DumboBud said:

The fact is that the club statement of 6 figure windfall from last year has been debunked and has led them to change their stance this year. Not hard to work that out especially as the club now have the info on extra costs and substituted/ lost income that this decision cost. 

Would have been better all round if they had played straight from the start. 

There is absolutely nothing in the statement to suggest that there is even going to be a review of this arrangement for the coming season, regardless of how many tickets we sell. 

- where has it been debunked 

- where does it specifically say ‘this is a change on this season and we don’t expect to make any income, just break even’ 

- I have now three times told you that in April’s statement it clearly makes reference to increased tickets/ season tickets 

- they would have had income figures from those three games when they confirmed it allowed for a 10% increase in player budget this season. 

- do you think GLS has lied?

You're very much clutching here 

[BuddieinEK]

In a positive fashion of course. What a surprise the triggered trio come out [emoji38]

You were positively master baiting? Fair enough if it gives you pleasure!

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

But he is 100% correct.... Unless you are referring to your own spin, which even GLS is showing up now!

‘We will continue our policy of the West Stand being St Mirren fans only with the Family Stand being given over to Celtic and Rangers fans to help finance the loss of revenue this creates.’ 

This one sentence equates to GLS making a financial comparison between given OF 2 stands vs 1 & W6/7 

aye no bother, keep telling yourself that. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

In a positive fashion of course. What a surprise the triggered trio come out 

You were positively master baiting? Fair enough if it gives you pleasure!

Equal to anyone else pleasure in using a St Mirren discussion forum I imagine...

[FTOF]

2 hours ago, DumboBud said:

 

So given that there is no six figure windfall, as many of us proved in the past. I wonder if those who blindly believed what they were told before will now change their mind on the benefit of telling kids they aren’t welcome. 

No you didn't.

 

[jaybee]

30 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

42 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Is it, my understanding of directors (and I am one by the way) is that the board will consider 'issues' and offer advice as to options available and perhaps even suggest a prefered option, however; when an individual has a majority shareholding, he or she can decide if they wish to follow that advice ............. or not.  Ultimately a club decision can be taken by the owner surely?  Or do you know something which I don't?

Not sure what you’re referring to

My apologies Bazill85, I was of course intending to respond to Dumbobud when he said "TBH I don’t like the idea that this is GLS said this or decided that..... the club has a number of directors and it is a club decision. " sort of spoils it somewhat when I feck it up............Sorry.

[DumboBud]

25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

- where has it been debunked 

- where does it specifically say ‘this is a change on this season and we don’t expect to make any income, just break even’ 

- I have now three times told you that in April’s statement it clearly makes reference to increased tickets/ season tickets 

- they would have had income figures from those three games when they confirmed it allowed for a 10% increase in player budget this season. 

- do you think GLS has lied?

You're very much clutching here 

- Debunked in the various threads on this previously. You may even have posted on some of them!

- Nobody has claimed it is a break even position. 

- The most recent statement, some might even call it a sales pitch,  from the club makes no mention of any possibility of the decision changing this season if a number of STs are sold. Contrast this to the time that the club said if a certain amount of STs are sold then W7 would be kept for home fans. There are no plans to change this decision for this season.

- as you should be aware income is only part of the story

- I have already told you that I don’t believe this is a GLS said this or that situation, it is a club decision. 

No attempt at clutching, just gratitude that the club ( not GLS) are at last telling us what some of the more questioning members of the forum have known for sometime. 

[stlucifer]

4 hours ago, mattman said:

Not like our board to jump on the good feel factor at the right time... well played.

 

Hopefully see a few of the faces who returned on Sunday at more games next season 🐼🐼

They had the STs out on the 21 May last year.

[smcc]

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

They had the STs out on the 21 May last year.

At which time, if my memory serves me, we knew we would definitely be playing in the top division.

[BuddieinEK]

- Debunked in the various threads on this previously. You may even have posted on some of them!
- Nobody has claimed it is a break even position. 
- The most recent statement, some might even call it a sales pitch,  from the club makes no mention of any possibility of the decision changing this season if a number of STs are sold. Contrast this to the time that the club said if a certain amount of STs are sold then W7 would be kept for home fans. There are no plans to change this decision for this season.
- as you should be aware income is only part of the story
- I have already told you that I don’t believe this is a GLS said this or that situation, it is a club decision. 
No attempt at clutching, just gratitude that the club ( not GLS) are at last telling us what some of the more questioning members of the forum have known for sometime. 

Yup.... Totally agree.
Although disappointed that yet again they take the easy option and don't try to build our own fanbase or offer incentives, I had already decided to just buy our season tickets without comment till Baz the master baiter brought the subject up!

[stlucifer]

4 minutes ago, smcc said:

At which time, if my memory serves me, we knew we would definitely be playing in the top division.

I don't see your point. I was referring to taking advantage of a feelgood factor. Mattman was suggesting our board didn't do this. I was intimating that they DID do it as recently as the end of last season.

To clarify. The 2017-18 season.

Edited May 29, 2019 by stlucifer