Biowave Sponsor on Copland stand

Should this type of Advertisement be allowed on our stadium outwith normal billboards etc ?

  • Yes it’s income at the end of the day

    Votes: 623 62.2%

  • No the stadium is sacrosanct

    Votes: 75 7.5%

  • Only if it’s a large amount of income

    Votes: 304 30.3%
  • Total voters
    1,002
SSJack said:
I never said “ why is it being kept secret” either . I said it won’t be a secret as it will be in the accounts . If you are going to debate at least be accurate with quoting people .

At the end of the day it’s healthy for fans to get involved and ask questions rather than just shrug and accept everything like lemmings . It doesn’t do any harm . Keeping some traditional aspect to our club is no bad thing and as others have pointed out there must be a balance to be had between sponsorship revenue and taste .
Click to expand...
I didnt quote you i was paraphrasing hence the lack of quotation marks, but then you knew that and as you say at least be accurate when debating.

No one is saying not to question the club, transparency and accountability are important, however, fans do not need to know the daily ins and outs of the running of the club. Thats why there is a board.

I honestly think people need a reality check. The logo on the Copland does not detract from the stadium anymore than other sponsorship within the stadium. Had it been plastered on the outside then I may have seen a point in being upset by it.

It will bring in much needed income and allow the club to operate at a higher level.

The club need deals like this and that is was reality before covid and is more so now.

If people would rather have less sponsorship and leads to being on the back foot regards investment in the team and challenging for titles etc then thats up to them. Personally I am more interested in what is happening on the park rather than off it on the stands.
 
BathgateBear said:
71038ad51e0a62c613dfcd5e7566bbfd.jpg

Been done before
Click to expand...
Are Bovril a bluechip company though? :p
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
I didnt quote you i was paraphrasing hence the lack of quotation marks, but then you knew that and as you say at least be accurate when debating.

No one is saying not to question the club, transparency and accountability are important, however, fans do not need to know the daily ins and outs of the running of the club. Thats why there is a board.

I honestly think people need a reality check. The logo on the Copland does not detract from the stadium anymore than other sponsorship within the stadium. Had it been plastered on the outside then I may have seen a point in being upset by it.

It will bring in much needed income and allow the club to operate at a higher level.

The club need deals like this and that is was reality before covid and is more so now.

If people would rather have less sponsorship and leads to being on the back foot regards investment in the team and challenging for titles etc then thats up to them. Personally I am more interested in what is happening on the park rather than off it on the stands.
Click to expand...
The proof will be in the pudding when we find out the figures . If it’s a substantial amount as the poll suggests most of us would tolerate it . I wonder if we would go a stage further and consider naming rights for the stadium itself if the offer was right . Interesting times.
 
I'd much rather it wasn't there. A quick Google suggests this is a company worth just under £3m so not exactly prime. Hopefully it's just advertising space and not renamin the stand a la Pukka Pie Stand at Brammal Lane
 
At one point we almost changed the name of the entire stadium. Granted that was when the spivs were in control, so it could have been worse.

IIRC many on here were on board with it at the time
 
Don’t have a problem with it but it doesn’t seem like the company involved are worth a lot of money.

Would be interesting to see how much we get from it as I think it should only happen if we’re getting a decent fee from it.
 
BobbyShearer said:


I’d be looking for a fair few quid for this tbh.

Much more than the Bitci and Tomket deals for starters.
Click to expand...
I don't think it looks that bad and as long as Rangers is getting a good deal commercially I don't have a problem with it.

After viewing Whyte's hated "Family Stand" logo on the Broomloan long after he'd gone, I'm not that fussed at something that's bringing in revenue to the club.
 
Kanye West said:
The club has confirmed it’s a significant fee. Another partner added to the family.
Click to expand...
Let's hope it's genuinely significant.

To be honest, the club aren't going to say it's 'not a significant fee'.

I posted earlier that this company has just over 40 employees, revenue of $4m and total funding since 2000 of $2.1m.

I'm struggling to see where a 'significant' fee is coming from within a business of that scale.
 
Vidmar said:
We have no clarity on how much this actually brings in. But is it worth the eyesore? Almost certainly not. We will be lucky if it’s high five figures per annum and for me, that’s not worth it.

There has to be some caveats to this sort of sponsorship. If Tena Lady offered us £5m p/a as shirt sponsors, we’d need to consider more than just cash.

We’ve gone from a single shirt sponsor, to a shirt sponsor, shorts sponsor, top of back sponsor, bottom of back sponsor, sleeve sponsor, and now training kit sponsor. If we ditched them all how would it hit revenue? £1m? Maybe?

There’s a balance to be struck. Turkish Bitcoin nonentities don’t enhance the brand.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that there's a pandemic ongoing that's meant we've been unable to garner a large part of our normal incomings? That we're still rebuilding and bringing the club back up the.the level of that it belongs. You do know those that own the club don't have a money tree growing to endlessly put money in and that we are running at a significant loss?

Would you prefer us to sell all prize assets and weaken rather than strengthen the side?
 
Truffle Shuffle said:
Are you aware that there's a pandemic ongoing that's meant we've been unable to garner a large part of our normal incomings? That we're still rebuilding and bringing the club back up the.the level of that it belongs. You do know those that own the club don't have a money tree growing to endlessly put money in and that we are running at a significant loss?

Would you prefer us to sell all prize assets and weaken rather than strengthen the side?
Click to expand...
Of course, but as above, this isn’t some huge multinational. It’s a moderate company.

There must be a ‘price’ on flogging these sorts of things and for the sake of, say, £50k, I’d rather not have two big, ugly logos on the roof. Just like I think CAPITAL LETTERS looks rubbish.

It was Charles Green who said “I’ll take a cheque off anybody” and was largely reviled so I’m not sure why we now take the view everything’s for sale.
 
Better than having Sports Direct plastered everywhere for the princely sum of £1, at least biowave - whoever the heck they are :D - will be paying a reasonable fee for it.
 
Kanye West said:
The club has confirmed it’s a significant fee. Another partner added to the family.
Click to expand...
What is significant though? Couple hundred thousand? They’re aren’t exactly a big cash rich company, pretty small revenue.

I’m just playing devils advocate, it doesn’t bother me that much. But going down this road of commercialism will end in tears at one point.
 
Vidmar said:
Of course, but as above, this isn’t some huge multinational. It’s a moderate company.

There must be a ‘price’ on flogging these sorts of things and for the sake of, say, £50k, I’d rather not have two big, ugly logos on the roof. Just like I think CAPITAL LETTERS looks rubbish.

It was Charles Green who said “I’ll take a cheque off anybody” and was largely reviled so I’m not sure why we now take the view everything’s for sale.
Click to expand...

Surely you're seeing a slight difference between the current Board and Charles Green - the money was going into his and his cronies pockets. Are you thinking that's also happening here?
 
MSF said:
What is significant though? Couple hundred thousand? They’re aren’t exactly a big cash rich company, pretty small revenue.

I’m just playing devils advocate, it doesn’t bother me that much. But going down this road of commercialism will end in tears at one point.
Click to expand...
Agreed mate.

I've posted some of the financials of the company earlier in the thread. They are a pretty small set up with low revenue levels. I'm not sure where "significant" money is coming from, based on their financials and scale of business.
 
looks terrible, as does the Sandy Jardine signage on the Govan Front.

Only thing above the stands should be Rangers FC if we want to look profesional
 
See tbh I couldn’t give a %^*& if we sold every single inch of roof space for advertising boards. Bring it on.

It is money for the club at the end of the day. Some people seem to have this weird obsession that Ibrox should remain untouched for whatever reason. Move with the times.

It was the exact same when they were talking about the upgrading the dressing room.
 
Anything to have a moan without even having a clue about the financials.....
I'd trust the club in what a significant fee is and if it's worthwhile and indeed necessary to the club than someone on here googling a companies details and having a moan about something they will probably never even see. I think the current board have demonstrated enough to be trusted to make these judgements, rather than being compared to Charles Green.
 
55 and counting said:
We are getting 1.5 million over 3 years for 1 of the wee sponsors on the shorts. This company sponsoring ladies team. Got sponsor on training bibs and this in a stand. Will be a decent bit more than that deal. Bisgrove has been 1 of the best pieces of business by the board . Guy is a money making machine.
Click to expand...
Bisgrove is night and day compared to that disaster Scott Steedman.

https://imgur.com/TJDoZ3W
 
It’s the 21st century. We have had advertising at football ground and on football shirts for most, or all, of our lives.

Unless you are about 100 or desperate to appear uberstaunch, I can’t see why anyone would care.
 
We have just invested in new led advertising so get to work on that, reserve the structure for iconic Rangers logos etc.
 
MSF said:
What is significant though? Couple hundred thousand? They’re aren’t exactly a big cash rich company, pretty small revenue.

I’m just playing devils advocate, it doesn’t bother me that much. But going down this road of commercialism will end in tears at one point.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are suggesting they paid a couple of hundred thousand for the space, but it will be nothing like that. This is an ad space and that is all it is. The eyeballs for this are a maximum 40,000 every other week for 2 hours (if someone wants to stare at that and not watch the football). It wont be seen on TV and it gets no passing trade so to speak. Imagine how effective that signage is versus having it on a billboard on a busy road in or out of a city or a peak Braehead which welcomed 15 million visitors annually. Unless the marketing director is a Rangers fan, he has to get value for money from space that he or she buys whether thats at a football ground, billboard, printed media or online.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
Surely you're seeing a slight difference between the current Board and Charles Green - the money was going into his and his cronies pockets. Are you thinking that's also happening here?
Click to expand...

Nope. I think the Board have done a terrific job.

But I still think there are certain aspects that should be fairly sacrosanct. Roof sponsors just seems a bit..... tinpot. I remember the days of Josh Windass hawking vapes in someone’s garden and I’d hoped we would move above that sort of thing.

If the cash was difference-making we’d all have to accept it, but it won’t be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top