Edmiston House and more seats or success on the park?

BombersBoots

BombersBoots

Well-Known Member
With the amount of money being funnelled in to these projects and the amount of investment required in the playing squad do we think this is a good use of funds.

It’s going to take in the region of 10 Years for Edminston house to turn a profit.

In the mean time we are potentially going to struggle with poor investment in the first team which turns in to a vicious circle.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?
 
I think we could and should do all 3. We can't deny disabled fans access they deserve. We should be improving the stadium footprint and taking care of our biggest asset, Ibrox. We should be planning ahead. We should be competitive domestically and putting in performances in Europe. I know it's not answered your question directly, but I think all 3 are important. The more worrying waste for me is the constant danages in court and poor player recruitment.
 
I think after some big sales (Gerrard, Patterson, Aribo, Bassey), the run to EL and the CL qualification, and the board are pleading skint, we're always going to be pleading skint.
I know folk will say, aye but this that and the other. But on the face of it, if we can't spend atm, I think we'll be bargain basement shopping for the foreseeable future.
 
BombersBoots said:
With the amount of money being funnelled in to these projects and the amount of investment required in the playing squad do we think this is a good use of funds.

It’s going to take in the region of 10 Years for Edminston house to turn a profit.

In the mean time we are potentially going to struggle with poor investment in the first team which turns in to a vicious circle.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?
Click to expand...
The idea of more seats and Edmiston House is to generate more money, which can then be reinvested into the team to help deliver success on the park. Scotland is a footballing backwater, so the club needs to create as many revenue streams as possible.
 
Davester said:
I think after some big sales (Gerrard, Patterson, Aribo, Bassey), the run to EL and the CL qualification, and the board are pleading skint, we're always going to be pleading skint.
I know folk will say, aye but this that and the other. But on the face of it, if we can't spend atm, I think we'll be bargain basement shopping for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
The board is not pleading skint. The finances were explained very clearly at yesterday's AGM. If you haven't yet watched it, I suggest you do.
 
Big D said:
The idea of more seats and Edmiston House is to generate more money, which can then be reinvested into the team to help deliver success on the park. Scotland is a footballing backwater, so the club needs to create as many revenue streams as possible.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Matchday experience has been a long time complaint on here, they are now trying to help this and they get moaned at.
 
Davester said:
I think after some big sales (Gerrard, Patterson, Aribo, Bassey), the run to EL and the CL qualification, and the board are pleading skint, we're always going to be pleading skint.
I know folk will say, aye but this that and the other. But on the face of it, if we can't spend atm, I think we'll be bargain basement shopping for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Interesting stat from Director of Finance at yesterday's AGM. Our turnover a record £89 million, Norwich City finishing bottom of EPL turnover £134 million. We simply can't match the spending power of teams from big 5 leagues. Player trading is the only option we have to keep us punching above our weight.
 
We’ve chucked the best part of £12 million at Ben Davies Matondo and ridvan .

Edminston house looks like a bargain by comparison and will pay for itself in ten years unlike our signings
 
Big D said:
The idea of more seats and Edmiston House is to generate more money, which can then be reinvested into the team to help deliver success on the park. Scotland is a footballing backwater, so the club needs to create as many revenue streams as possible.
Click to expand...
It’s going to take a long time for us to make the money back.

Winning the league and getting into and performing in the champions league is far more important just now until we are at this stage these things should have been put on hold.

If we are playing second fiddle to the Scum for the next 10 years then everything is going to suffer.
 
Bluebeard said:
We’ve chucked the best part of £12 million at Ben Davies Matondo and ridvan .

Edminston house looks like a bargain by comparison and will pay for itself in ten years unlike our signings
Click to expand...
It’s money we should have paid out once we were on a more sound financial footing not when we need millions spent on the team.
 
Long term investment = long term rewards.

The problem isn’t the money being spend on the first team, the problem is the money being spent foolishly on the first team. Pretty much our whole transfer kitty this season went on Davies/Yilmaz/Matondo and all three have been duds so far.
 
It doesn’t matter what the board do it will be crucified by many on here. My opinion for what it’s worth is we try ,as much as possible ,to do both.
 
Are we not close to our limits on playing squad spending due to FFP ? Edmiston house should homefully
Increase our revenue which would allow more to be invested in the playing squad.
 
The boards idea of success is one league title and one domestic cup every 4/5 years. In the real world fans will always say winning trophies is more important
Don’t think it should be a choice, both aren’t exclusive but it does seem as if we’ve wasted much needed funds on vanity projects
 
Success in the park will allow us to bring the funds in to make improvements off the park. There’s nothing to suggest we can do anything that we want within reason, but the improvements that we are currently making are ones that are required to make the fan experience more worthy of a club like ours.

We can’t be seen to fleece the fans for millions and not make major improvements on and off the park, we would end up looking like biscuit tin era rattlers if we didn’t.

We’ve made a lot of money, money that’s paid off investors loans and rightly so, and we still have the dough and the means to increase capacity and improve the disabled fan experience, as well as opening up the Edmiston House project which will open up new revenue streams.

The club is in a good place off the park right now, we just need to make the improvements on it to sustain what the club are trying to do, and that’s bring Rangers Football Club back to the pinnacle of Scottish Football and make us an envy of others across Europe. If that’s not the ambition of the board and investors then what’s the point of it all?
 
GovanFront4 said:
I think the board got too ahead of themselves after winning 55 that they thought everything was rosy and they could focus on other projects. Focus should have been on cementing that position.
Click to expand...
100%. Too many at the club from the boardroom to the dressing room thought 55 was "job done". As far as I can see the only ones who didn't were Gerrard and his staff, and I still believe if they'd been backed with 2 or 3 big signings they wouldn't have gone.
 
Kratos said:
Are we not close to our limits on playing squad spending due to FFP ? Edmiston house should homefully
Increase our revenue which would allow more to be invested in the playing squad.
Click to expand...
With last years and the years comings turn overs we will be more than find FFP wise.

No one is asking for 20 million pound players but we need at least 5 decent first team players and should be investing in 2-3 good players each season not s scatter gun or squad fillers.
 
Gringotts Dragon said:
The boards idea of success is one league title and one domestic cup every 4/5 years. In the real world fans will always say winning trophies is more important
Don’t think it should be a choice, both aren’t exclusive but it does seem as if we’ve wasted much needed funds on vanity projects
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense!
 
TN8 said:
100%. Too many at the club from the boardroom to the dressing room thought 55 was "job done". As far as I can see the only ones who didn't were Gerrard and his staff, and I still believe if they'd been backed with 2 or 3 big signings they wouldn't have gone.
Click to expand...
Agreed. First title in years should have been a platform to build on. Rangers teams win things, regularly. That’s the standard and shouldn’t be a nice to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN8
MYR_93 said:
Long term investment = long term rewards.

The problem isn’t the money being spend on the first team, the problem is the money being spent foolishly on the first team. Pretty much our whole transfer kitty this season went on Davies/Yilmaz/Matondo and all three have been duds so far.
Click to expand...
Yet the man who overseen out debatable transfer business is basically being back slapped yesterday at the AGM and feels he shouldn’t have to ask questions about the massive drop In squad value.
 
Bluefin221 said:
The kind of people that would have complained about the Main Stand being built and that it was too "ostentatious" for a mere football club.

Some people can't see beyond the next game.
Click to expand...
No one is complaining about progress just asking the question if we should be in a better place on the park before throwing 10s of millions at other stuff that won’t be quick to make us a profit.
 
Bluebeard said:
We’ve chucked the best part of £12 million at Ben Davies Matondo and ridvan .

Edminston house looks like a bargain by comparison and will pay for itself in ten years unlike our signings
Click to expand...
Davies and Yilmaz will be good signings in time

Jury well out on Matondo
 
Sweet_Home_Alabama said:
Interesting stat from Director of Finance at yesterday's AGM. Our turnover a record £89 million, Norwich City finishing bottom of EPL turnover £134 million. We simply can't match the spending power of teams from big 5 leagues. Player trading is the only option we have to keep us punching above our weight.
Click to expand...
We do need to compete with the crash barriers. If they're spending, we need to match/get close to it, to back our manager, or as many have stated on here, the spenders generally win the prizes.
 
MYR_93 said:
Long term investment = long term rewards.

The problem isn’t the money being spend on the first team, the problem is the money being spent foolishly on the first team. Pretty much our whole transfer kitty this season went on Davies/Yilmaz/Matondo and all three have been duds so far.
Click to expand...
Injured/project signing/not a footballer.
Not a good strike rate. We need to up our strike rate on signings.
 
Craigton said:
It really is.
Nothing they have said or done suggests that they would be happy with that.
Click to expand...
John Bennett saying it was the best squad he’s seen whilst we get absolutely demolished. The time it took to sack Gio and the soundbites we got about how he was doing a good job and the board were satisfied, namely due to European run
Everyone was shocked at the timing of him being sacked and that was due to the soundbites
 
Gringotts Dragon said:
John Bennett saying it was the best squad he’s seen whilst we get absolutely demolished. The time it took to sack Gio and the soundbites we got about how he was doing a good job and the board were satisfied, namely due to European run
Everyone was shocked at the timing of him being sacked and that was due to the soundbites
Click to expand...
And yet none of the above proves your point.
 
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. When we start to decide that some things are so much more important than others to the point that the less important stuff should receive no funding we unwittingly commit ourselves to only spending money on the thing deemed most important. That's a logical dead-end.

How much should be spent on each thing is a more interesting and, dare I say, far more complex discussion.
 
It is a chicken & egg situation. If we don't create revenue, we cannot invest in playing squad. Therefore need to find a way to do increased revenue projects ( increased seating/ ed hse etc), and still put out a team to compete. From agm if Norwich get more money than us, they can buy/ pay for better players, hence where Kent may end up ( doubling his salary ), which we cannot match.
 
Disabled access is something that has desperately needed sorted for some time. I think this is a must, if it costs 2m then it costs to 2m.

Edmiston House - I think will be amazing when its open. I think it will generate income but longer term income. Possibly that money would be better spent on the squad after probably 20m worth of failures signed by Wilson and Co.

Stadium expansion I am not too bothered about, that to me is a waste of time. The upheaval that will cause etc and lose finances at the time of building will have an impact unless we are moving out of there to play at Hampden which would be another disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top