Reds 2016

[USARugger]

You and your "likers" represent a strengthening group within the Australian community, which "slams" any voice which is contrary to theirs. Two recent examples of this are the "Climate-Change" debate, and the "Same-sex marriage" debate. fortunately, I attended a school where open and vigorous debate was encouraged!!
If your comments make you feel "cool", or "popular", then you may have a problem. Reg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality

 

[I like to watch]

No. This has nothing to do with trying to stifle voices contrary opinions.

It has everything to do with criticising stupid comments that have no basis in fact or reality.

You are not entitled to an opinion. You are only entitled to what you can effectively argue for and distorting facts or spreading outright lies doesn't create a valid opinion.

Too harsh.
He made 3 points.
QC (Quade Cooper) citizenship clearly is no Reds issue,there were plenty of others complaining about the trial jerseys without being ridiculed.
And the Reds trying to 'reclassify' the lifetime memberships is worthy of criticism.

 

[Braveheart81]

Too harsh.
He made 3 points.
QC (Quade Cooper) citizenship clearly is no Reds issue,there were plenty of others complaining about the trial jerseys without being ridiculed.
And the Reds trying to 'reclassify' the lifetime memberships is worthy of criticism.

Yes, but he related it back to other issues where there has been substantial discussion in the now closed Politics forum which is what my post was addressing.

 

[RugbyReg]

Seriously what in the sweet fuck does the Reds organization have anything to do with QC (Quade Cooper) not being a citizen?

Similarly this Reds organisation with a decision made back in 1967.

 

[barbarian]

Similarly this Reds organisation with a decision made back in 1967.

The only person you could have a crack at is Greg Holmes, and really he was only starting out with the Reds in 67 and had no role in such decisions.
.

 

[I like to watch]

Similarly this Reds organisation with a decision made back in 1967.

but it's this administration that are not honouring existing contracts.
Whether they now think lifetime memberships are a bad idea,is irrelevant.
The members accepted a deal in good faith.
The Reds should honour that deal in good faith, no matter how much they have to grind their teeth.
A deal is a deal.

 

[Braveheart81]

but it's this administration that are not honouring existing contracts.
Whether they now think lifetime memberships are a bad idea,is irrelevant.
The members accepted a deal in good faith.
The Reds should honour that deal in good faith, no matter how much they have to grind their teeth.
A deal is a deal.

Do the PGM and 30 year memberships have an annual fee or were they a one off payment?

If they were only a one off payment I see no issue not putting those people in the best seats in the house.

If you want to sit in the best seats then pay a yearly life membership renewal fee like the life members of pretty much every other team in every other sport.

They might have a contractual obligation to provide a seat to these members every year but do they have a contractual obligation to provide them with their best seats?

If they don't have a contractual obligation to provide the best seats then I certainly wouldn't agree that they have a moral obligation to provide those people with the best seats.

 

[RugbyReg]

with the PGM's it was a one off. The QRU are saying if you want best available you need to pay another annual amount, otherwise they get level 6 on half way.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Morality seems to take a back seat these days in the arena of professional sport

 

[Braveheart81]

with the PGM's it was a one off. The QRU are saying if you want best available you need to pay another annual amount, otherwise they get level 6 on half way.

That seems totally fine to me.

Why give those people the same or better than your current life members who contribute a substantial amount every year?

 

[I like to watch]

My understanding is that it was a one off payment for a lifetime of "the best seats in the house"
And that the Reds have reclassified a B section as category A,to meet their obligations.Requiring 'lifetime members' to pay $40 per game or similar to book a seat in what were previously free seats for them.

I get that the Reds are frustrated,that they play more games these days than when they sold the packages,but that's irrelevant.
If it's only 300 tickets,as I believe,it's a battle that has no significant upside,but with reputation risk.
Just do the right thing!

 

[Braveheart81]

I get that the Reds are frustrated,that they play more games these days than when they sold the packages,but that's irrelevant.
If it's only 300 tickets,as I believe,it's a battle that has no significant upside,but with reputation risk.
Just do the right thing!

300 seats is a substantial number if you're talking about literally the best bay in the stadium.

I certainly see both sides of the argument but I don't think the Reds are making a crazy decision trying to shift these people to either pony up to be core members of the club and sit in the best seats or move to less ideal seats.

 

[TOCC]

There's a reason clubs don't offer lifetime memberships anymore, whilst they may have provided an immediate cash injection in the 1960's they are an ongoing liability for future administrations to manage. I would hazard to guess that the relative cost of stadium hire and match day costs has grown at a significantly faster rate then inflation since the 1960's, at least it has in the corporate and platnimum member's area..

To put in into perspective, whilst $300 from 1966 equates to $3'000 in todays with inflation, the cost of the Ruby membership seats(which is where these PGM's are arguing to sit) cost $1'000/year alone.

So assuming there are 300 PGM's, that is a liability or lack lack of earned income of $300,000 year for the QRU. If they shift all the PGM's to the platinum area then its only $150,000/annum. Honestly, who the hell would pay $1,000 for a membership anyway when the view for half the price looks the same.

Ruby Membership View:

Platinum Membership View

 

[redstragic]

I sit directly behind the posts for half the cost again. Great seats.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Happy to Chat]

Can we change the subject to Rugby, my seat is sore just reading this crap. Its not like they would be disadvantaged in any way, they will still be watching the same game. Its not like they are being relegated to watching the u15 Gold Cup.

 

[Sully]

I sit on the sideline for free. And I get a feed and a drink.

FYI this from the RBA

 

[Highlander35]

I'd find the money, take that deal and run if it was available. Even rounding up to 4 grand for (hopefully 60 years?) life membership puts that at roughly $67 a year, when Silver Membership alone is $215 per annum.

Nature of the game going professional would mean you'd have a snowballs chance at getting that sort of deal of course, even at 5 or 6 times the price.

 

[I like to watch]

300 seats is a substantial number if you're talking about literally the best bay in the stadium.

I certainly see both sides of the argument but I don't think the Reds are making a crazy decision trying to shift these people to either pony up to be core members of the club and sit in the best seats or move to less ideal seats.

it shouldn't be a financial decision.
It's a moral issue.
the Reds were desperate for cash,they offered a lifetime of best seats in the house.
Now that things are no longer desperate,they are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.
That's the issue.

 

[Ignoto]

So assuming there are 300 PGM's, that is a liability or lack lack of earned income of $300,000 year for the QRU. If they shift all the PGM's to the platinum area then its only $150,000/annum. Honestly, who the hell would pay $1,000 for a membership anyway when the view for half the price looks the same.

That's a bit similar to the big bad piracy figures that movie studios bring out on "lost sales". Would all 300 PGM's buy yearly Ruby or Platinum memberships or would only a small percentage?

It was an easy enough argument for the Administration to make a couple years ago when membership was in demand, but with the consistent years of poor rugby, I don't think they can tout out those outlandish figures any more. The supply has stayed the same, but the demand has dramatically fallen away.

 

[Happy to Chat]

it shouldn't be a financial decision.
It's a moral issue.
the Reds were desperate for cash,they offered a lifetime of best seats in the house.
Now that things are no longer desperate,they are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.
That's the issue.

The problem is most of the Union games are not being played at the same house anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk