Member Info for SaltedPopcorn

I know this is a share site, not a football site. However, I was struck by Sevco's recent bad run of results on the pitch (one win in the last seven outings, and that was a bit flukey). This got me looking at their results this season. There was a clear turning point in mid November. Before that, they were winning almost everything - except against Hearts. After that point, they started to drop points and lose matches quite suddenly and quite regularly. This got me thinking - this was pretty much exactly the time the money ran out and the Ashley loans came into play. Going a little bit further, if the current rate of results continues and if they survive that long, Sevco may not even scrape into the top four. It's really touch and go. And if all the players are out of contract at the end of the year, as many seem to think, they would presumably have to be replaced with free transfers and players on much lower wages. This is unlikely to appeal to the customer base, driving revenue further down. Those who have stayed away will largely have got out of the habit of going to the football and deteriorating on field performance, even with real Rangers men at the helm, is unlikely to get them back into the habit. Simples. I think King was probably right when he spoke of needing 50m quid to fix it. The good news is that if they did a whip round of all the fans allegedly present at last night's game, it would only take 1500 pounds each to exceed the target.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The "decent enough" gate of 35,000 includes season ticket holders, many of whom would not have turned up. But the potential Ashley-Easdale gate would have excluded absentee season ticket holders.

Well, official attendance was 35,000 - maybe 20,000 of which would be season ticket holders who are marked present even when they are not. So being generous, that's 15,000 paying punters at, shall we say, an average of 15 pounds a ticket. That's 225,000 in the coffers. And the good news is that the 40,000 threshold for the onerous payments wasn't triggered.

The club is the company is the club. The suggestion of anything else is simply a legal fiction created to allow a phoenix company to take the customer base of the dead one. By all means play that line in court, but playing it in public just makes a person look like a fool.

DB - every now and then, a Rangers minded person pops up with some demand that the views of non-Rangers minded people be banished or somehow limited. Right now, this club and its associates stock are in their biggest crisis yet. It is simply unimaginable to suggest that adverse commentators might stop commentating. Remember, DB, that you and your fellow Bears purport to be British (although it is a model of Britishness that is an embarrassment to most British people). One of the core values of British society is freedom of speech. When you seek to curtail it you are betraying your nation. Have a wee think about that.

I don't know what a ccp troll is, but I have read that if a gate exceeds 40,000 one of the onerous contracts comes into play and the club actually loses money.

I presume by "getting rid of the trolls" you mean getting rid of the people who point out that this club, as it approaches its third birthday, has no money, lots of debt and whose shares have been suspended. Who point out that the club has sold much of its revenue streams, has a useless manager sitting out his notice at home, whilst his useless assistant is sitting out his notice in control of the first team; that the club has no scouting network; has an aging team; and is now failing to perform on the pitch with alarming regularity; who point out that there is no credible business model; has just had an EGM to install a crook onto the Board who has since decided he is unable to accept the position to which he sought election - then yes, I'd say getting rid of them will be quite a big ask. Or just wait three weeks for the club to be de-listed permanently.