Rangers hanging their fans out to dry (part 2)

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

They never got arrested at any match. I don't think anyone did.

Ok, in relation to a match in which they had a ticket from the club's allocation.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

21 minutes ago, The Dude said:

By stating that a season ticket had been revoked for an undefined period is perjury when someone's season ticket has been revoked for an undefined period?

 

The problem is thats not what you originally suggested. Heres a reminder for you.

I already pointed out to you that that is not what is said in the letter - to which you failed to respond in the other thread.

The letter makes no mention of the fact that the ST has been revoked while football related charges are "live" or as I would put it - pending.

Had it done so then I think that would cetainly have been more acceptable.

It is a ban for an indefinite period with the added censure of ST forfeiture without compensation or for that matter, without caveat

[The Dude 20,026]

8 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Mmm. In fairness, for all the Hibs letter seems more appropriate, it's not really a fair comparison, because we don't know the two stories of the two supporters involved, specifically whether the Hibs supporter is at court or not, whether he's pled guilty to anything or not and that kind of stuff. Not mentioning 'ban' (or similar) and using the term 'on hold' could be important, but it depends whether there's a reason for them doing that (there probably is a reason they've used that phrase rather than the kind of language Rangers have used). Their tack does appear to be a reasonable one though, or at least that they're trying to be reasonable, or seen to be as such. Rangers haven't, which in itself seems to show more disdain. Certainly some seem to have that impression, which itself makes it a mistake on Rangers' part. I still have the point of view that Rangers' approach isn't reasonable and their choice of actions isn't right. The whole thing's been handled in a pretty ill-considered 'computer says no' way, which Hibs look like they might have avoided. They've at least tried to maintain appearances. 

As for elsewhere... don't know about that. I only know my little RM world nowadays. Does anyone else even know about it and would they be upset if they did? Dunno. 

Part of it as well is that from Hibs perspective if they were to take a hardline and use the type of methodology and wording used in the Rangers letter you're potentially looking at a huge chunk of Hibs usual ticket buying support banned. From our persepective, we ban a handful and, in the grand scheme of things, it's no great loss. What's a handful of tickets lost?

[Inigo 32,532]

Just now, The Dude said:

Part of it as well is that from Hibs perspective if they were to take a hardline and use the type of methodology and wording used in the Rangers letter you're potentially looking at a huge chunk of Hibs usual ticket buying support banned. From our persepective, we ban a handful and, in the grand scheme of things, it's no great loss. What's a handful of tickets lost?

Yeah, possibly has something to do with it. Pretty poor in itself though. Call me naive, but I don't like the idea of the Board using that kind of logic about fans.

[CoplandStandBear 995]

8 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

I'd rather lads like these that will fight for and protect our clubs fans than you who greets about them.

 

The club disagrees that's why it is banning them.  

[Ozblue 4,331]

6 minutes ago, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

Couldnt of said it better myself!

Never met @K.A.I but his passion for the club is clear. Its shocking the way the club are dealing with this and for the fans sticking the knife in. . . . if you werent there then dont pre judge. Just wait and see what the out come is. Cant express how dissapointed I am with the board when it initially seemed from the statement that they would back the fans. For them to back peddle is a disgrace in my eyes

I have met the man and he has helped me and many others (directly or indirectly)  get tickets for very important games both home and away when I have been to Scotland. At times his 'enthusiasm' for Rangers perhaps make him overstep the bounds of ticket t/c, but that is not the point I am making or judging. My point is that he is being punished by the club for an ALLEGED indiscretion without being able to present his side of the story; which to me is disgraceful conduct from our Club.

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

The problem is thats not what you originally suggested. Heres a reminder for you.

I already pointed out to you that that is not what is said in the letter - to which you failed to respond in the other thread.

The letter makes no mention of the fact that the ST has been revoked while football related charges are "live" or as I would put it - pending.

Had it done so then I think that would cetainly have been more acceptable.

It is a ban for an indefinite period with the added censure of ST forfeiture without compensation.

So what part of that is perjurious? Is it not correct that the club have revoked it whilst charges are live? (Pending implies it would be lifted at the outcome of proceedings, live is a bit more open ended in that it could apply until such time as the conviction is spent)

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, CoplandStandBear said:

The club disagrees that's why it is banning them.  

The "club" done nothing right when Whyte, Green, Lambias, Wallace, Mather, Easedales were in charge. Do you always take every decision handed down from the top as gospel and correct?

[CoplandStandBear 995]

10 minutes ago, Ozblue said:

So let us make this clear...Do you agree with how the club handled this situation?

It's exactly how I would expect it to be handled given it has been in the terms and conditions for years.  

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, possibly has something to do with it. Pretty poor in itself though. Call me naive, but I don't like the idea of the Board using that kind of logic about fans.

At the end of the day it's a business. They have a "brand" to protect whilst still trying to maximise revenue. This allows the club to be seen to do something while giving the message that violence etc isn't tolerated at the club etc.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

At the end of the day it's a business. They have a "brand" to protect whilst still trying to maximise revenue. This allows the club to be seen to do something while giving the message that violence etc isn't tolerated at the club etc.

I can actually meet you half way on that. That's totally the clubs view, while they throw good supporters under the bus and use them as sacrificial lambs to get that.

[CoplandStandBear 995]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

The "club" done nothing right when Whyte, Green, Lambias, Wallace, Mather, Easedales were in charge. Do you always take every decision handed down from the top as gospel and correct?

The terms would have been the same under them, it's pretty standard.  Hibs terms:

14. The Club reserves the right to withdraw the season ticket from any person at any time, should the person contravene any ground regulations.

You'd probably struggle to get money back from them too.  It's a pretty big incentive not to run on the park and act the hardman.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

At the end of the day it's a business. They have a "brand" to protect whilst still trying to maximise revenue. This allows the club to be seen to do something while giving the message that violence etc isn't tolerated at the club etc.

Brand to protect  

Please the board of Rangers haven't cared about the brand name for decades. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, CoplandStandBear said:

The terms would have been the same under them, it's pretty standard.  Hibs terms:

14. The Club reserves the right to withdraw the season ticket from any person at any time, should the person contravene any ground regulations.

You'd probably struggle to get money back from them too.  It's a pretty big incentive not to run on the park and act the hardman.

But they haven't or at least in a final sense the way rangers have done - how many do you need this explaining to you?

[Ozblue 4,331]

4 minutes ago, CoplandStandBear said:

It's exactly how I would expect it to be handled given it has been in the terms and conditions for years.  

I'm glad you read and adhere to the T&C of everything in life.

No deposit; No returns  Loyal.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

21 minutes ago, CoplandStandBear said:

Getting arrested.  Rangers aren't doing it to bilk you out of a £500 quid book.  The bad publicity and embarrassment and potential fines and extra policing and stewarding will cost more than that.  

You do fukking realise that GETTING ARRESTED does not automatically mean you are guilty or that in fact you have done anything wrong.   As I said earlier the club have been premature.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Just now, The Dude said:

So what part of that is perjurious? Is it not correct that the club have revoked it whilst charges are live? (Pending implies it would be lifted at the outcome of proceedings, live is a bit more open ended in that it could apply until such time as the conviction is spent)

You need to read that letter again Dude

It is actually in 2 parts.

The ban is imposed as a consequence of the arrest and thus bringing the club into disrepute - it is for an indefinite period and covers both home and away matches.

The second part is the possible (which has come to fruition)  revocation of the season ticket without compensation, is as a consequene of alleged criminal conduct.

At no point anywhere in that letter does it make reference to such a ban or forfeiture being subject to any caveat or "live" case.

[Irn Blu 221]

13 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Then give all those banned a full refund. 

As for the bad publicity  really the board don't seem to bother their arse with any other bad publicity. 

Hear! Hear! They sit on their arses doing fuck all when our name is dragged through the mud by the smsm and self-proclaimed bloggers but start handing out bans to Bears who have stuck with them throughout the toughest years in our club's history for defending our own from a situation caused by the massive fuck up by Police Scotland and the SPFL?!?! 

[Inigo 32,532]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

At the end of the day it's a business. They have a "brand" to protect whilst still trying to maximise revenue. This allows the club to be seen to do something while giving the message that violence etc isn't tolerated at the club etc.

Disagree. They could have done it differently and protected that part of the image whilst behaving more reasonably. Something akin to what RFC52 mentioned in some earlier post somewhere. They should have shown that they wouldn't tolerate violence whilst being more reasonable. I think the Board have some smart guys on it. I think they could have achieved that if they'd thought about it. Unless they're doing this for some other reason and they had thought about it, but decided to go down this route anyway. But if so the realpolitik stuff doesn't cut it for me when it comes to dealing with individuals fairly. The kind of sacrificial lambs mentioned above aren't great for the club's image either.

[Blue1872 11]

By making a decision and putting yourself into the position of entering the pitch, then you are taking the risk of being banned. Every supporter of all the clubs in Scotland know this sort of behaviour isn't acceptable regardless of the outcome of a court case. Rangers clearly state this within the Season Ticket T&C's as previously noted in this thread.

In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club.

We don't see the financial consequences that occur to the club when this type of incident happens, large fines and increased costs to arrange more policing/stewards at games etc. 

Posts on here keep referring to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" If you have received this letter then at some point in that match your detail where provided to the police who have then relayed his onto the club. So in the clubs eyes you are guilty of breaching their T&C's. So really there's no one to blame other than the individual who enters the park.

Though if the Hibs fans could have celebrated like all other clubs do, then we wouldn't have had this issue. 

[ForeverAndEver 71,502]

Just now, Blue1872 said:

By making a decision and putting yourself into the position of entering the pitch, then you are taking the risk of being banned. Every supporter of all the clubs in Scotland know this sort of behaviour isn't acceptable regardless of the outcome of a court case. Rangers clearly state this within the Season Ticket T&C's as previously noted in this thread.

In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club.

We don't see the financial consequences that occur to the club when this type of incident happens, large fines and increased costs to arrange more policing/stewards at games etc. 

Posts on here keep referring to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" If you have received this letter then at some point in that match your detail where provided to the police who have then relayed his onto the club. So in the clubs eyes you are guilty of breaching their T&C's. So really there's no one to blame other than the individual who enters the park.

Though if the Hibs fans could have celebrated like all other clubs do, then we wouldn't have had this issue. 

If it happens once, after hundreds/thousands of fans run towards you, then it is unlikely.

 

Another one.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

1 minute ago, Blue1872 said:

By making a decision and putting yourself into the position of entering the pitch, then you are taking the risk of being banned. Every supporter of all the clubs in Scotland know this sort of behaviour isn't acceptable regardless of the outcome of a court case. Rangers clearly state this within the Season Ticket T&C's as previously noted in this thread.

In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club.

We don't see the financial consequences that occur to the club when this type of incident happens, large fines and increased costs to arrange more policing/stewards at games etc. 

Posts on here keep referring to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" If you have received this letter then at some point in that match your detail where provided to the police who have then relayed his onto the club. So in the clubs eyes you are guilty of breaching their T&C's. So really there's no one to blame other than the individual who enters the park.

Though if the Hibs fans could have celebrated like all other clubs do, then we wouldn't have had this issue. 

 

Then why did the Club Statement in the aftermath defend those who encroached on the pitch ?

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, Blue1872 said:

By making a decision and putting yourself into the position of entering the pitch, then you are taking the risk of being banned. Every supporter of all the clubs in Scotland know this sort of behaviour isn't acceptable regardless of the outcome of a court case. Rangers clearly state this within the Season Ticket T&C's as previously noted in this thread.

In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club.

We don't see the financial consequences that occur to the club when this type of incident happens, large fines and increased costs to arrange more policing/stewards at games etc. 

Posts on here keep referring to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" If you have received this letter then at some point in that match your detail where provided to the police who have then relayed his onto the club. So in the clubs eyes you are guilty of breaching their T&C's. So really there's no one to blame other than the individual who enters the park.

Though if the Hibs fans could have celebrated like all other clubs do, then we wouldn't have had this issue. 

Another really low post counter that pops up ... that's half a dozen or you's now. Hmmm.

[Blue1872 11]

1 minute ago, ForeverAndEver said:

If it happens once, after hundreds/thousands of fans run towards you, then it is unlikely.

 

Another one.

Sorry I don't understand you here, are you saying you agree if it's one supporter then the club have the rights to ban but if it's more then they don't ?

[Blue1872 11]

2 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

 

Then why did the Club Statement in the aftermath defend those who encroached on the pitch ?

I don't know I never wrote the club statement. I'm taking my view from the ban letter that's been sent.