Jump to content

Cinch


Jambo61

Recommended Posts

Hagar the Horrible
4 minutes ago, Largo said:

You honestly think the cinch will still sponsor the SPL if Rangers are successful in their objection, figures from Sky show Rangers are the biggest draw to viewing figures in Scottish football. If cinch agreed to continue without Rangers then the deal would be re negotiated for a far lesser payment . 

I honestly think this is not about Cinch or the deal being crap,  Its all about what Rangers motives are?  They wont, cant and should not win as it would open up all sorts of cans of worms, we could all decide we dont like that deal so do our own better one with a rival.

 

Gut instint is Rangers are playing games, and will end up losing in arbitration, and will  promote the Cinch Livery as and where necessary.

 

BUT  if Rangers win, Cinch might and will pull the plug.  then that leaves Doncaster and the SPFL with a 32 Red face. and the backlash from the clubs will fall on one side or the other and perhaps a split.  If Rangers win then that would limit all league sponsors to only those who dont have a rival with a deal with a member club.  Rangers have stated in advance without evidencing it that they have another deal, again the Ladbrooks and 32 Red there was no issues.

 

If Cinch win and Rangers still dont comply, then we are back to square one, The Cinch deal is worse than any we have had in 20 years, Spurs get £10m in 1 year, we get £8m in 5, but we paid out £500k to win this deal, so perhaps Rangers are the Greta Thunberg of the SPFL.  perhaps Mike Ashley sells cars now?

 

But in answer to your question, I dont know what to think, I am just speculating, But it will be a huge can of worms if Rangers win....Buy some popcorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rogue Daddy

    15

  • davemclaren

    14

  • Hagar the Horrible

    13

  • Lone Striker

    11

13 hours ago, Beni said:

 

From around the time of the demotion I seem to remember that there's a gentleman's agreement that the old firm alternate their representatives on the SPFL board, so it will be back to Sevco's turn this year 

Just that, right there..... epitomises everything wrong with the governance of our game.

 

Back to the sleeve sponsor... you've got to ask why the SPFL just didn't ask clubs to leave the 'sleeve' for a league badge/sponsor... and let clubs fill the rest or their tops with whatever else they wanted. I really can't see it being a 'conflict' because both sell cars (or are car related)... is it not more to do with the position ie. the sleeve? Or have i got that wrong?

 

anyhoo... I also think there's more to this. If it goes to arbitration, only the SPFL will win (lets face it, they're in each others pockets). No, sevco want rid of dungcaster (and a power shift back in their favour). Me thinks they smell blood now that lawell is no longer pulling the shots, or at least, has had dungcaster surgically removed from his arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible

Just for clarity the head of sport sponsorship for Cinch is a Tim McLoughlin

 

And also to confirm, the dispute is with Douglas park and his belief that it conflicts with his Parks Motor Group business

 

Surely the answer is simple Douglas park should provide £16m double the current deal and sponsor the whole league.

 

As much as I hate the deal and the SPFL we cant all be held to ransom by a director who owns a business in which the sposnorship affects his/hers own business, that as we say is tough titties.

 

We should be glad its not the Face Painter SPFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Just for clarity the head of sport sponsorship for Cinch is a Tim McLoughlin

 

And also to confirm, the dispute is with Douglas park and his belief that it conflicts with his Parks Motor Group business

 

Surely the answer is simple Douglas park should provide £16m double the current deal and sponsor the whole league.

 

As much as I hate the deal and the SPFL we cant all be held to ransom by a director who owns a business in which the sposnorship affects his/hers own business, that as we say is tough titties.

 

We should be glad its not the Face Painter SPFL

:rofl:...whodda thunk it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

Rangers will win this. 

 

But they also appear to be dragging it out for more publicity. 

Rangers are complying with their contractual obligations as they see them - there's nothing that they could take legal action over. It's the SPFL that will need to take legal action if they want to force Rangers to do something so the timing is outwith Rangers' control.

 

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

As much as I want the SPFL to get slapped in this one and every one, Tomket sell tires not cars, but even if I was the Tomket sales rep I would be delighted that if you buy a car from Cinch and you want tires for it, buy Tomket?

 

Tomket wont complain as they sponser Stuttgart who Have Mercedes-Benz bank as their main sponsor, and what they paid was what they agreed.  They also agreed to wear the league logo on their sleve if its the Cinch League or the Visit Ireland League, the SPFL have the right to make a shite deal.  They had the Ladbrookes SPFL still while 32 Red on the front. 

 

This is something more and no doubt petty, but its a motive

Sponsors pay more for exclusivity clauses. Just because Rangers and Tomket have deals with others that don't have those clauses, it doesn't mean that this one won't.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Ever since the 1974 world cup where the dutch team were sponsored by Adidas and if you look at Johan Cruyff, he only had 2 strips down his shirt, as he had a personal deal with Puma and claimed against his FA that althought the Dutch FA had a deal with Adidas, his head sticking out of it did not.  Since then the contracts have been tightened and not even Messi would get away with stitching 3 stripes into a Nike Argentina Strip. 

Contracts may have been tightened up generally but the contract the SPFL and Rangers have, in the form of the league rules, specifically rule I7, appears to allows for Rangers to do what they are doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

 

Also final note, neither the SMSM, Sevco or indeed any clubs has came out publically and stated the deal is shite and we have been under sold, The league has been under valued, and Doncaster paid somebody else £500k for doing the work.  Nobody asks what are we paying him £400k for.  I just hope this is Rangers trying to do something behind the scenes.  Even if its about one director and for his benefit, if the whole league benefits from bringing down the citadel of crap then so be it!

Pretty sure a club did criticise the deal .

Actually thought it was der Hun

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible

Ok for what It’s worth, here is my take on how this is interpreted.  I am trying to be impartial, although choosing a side is like trying to pick up a jobby by the clean end!

 

Rangers Claim they don’t have to wear the Cinch Livery deal  based on Rule I7.1 page 113:

that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule


I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company.

 

Rangers claim that the Cinch deal was agreed after they went into partnership with the Parks Motor Group and the deal with Cinch would be in commercial breach, and as such this Rule takes into account of that.  They are therefore not going to use the logo, advertising boards backdrops for TV etc.  However if fails to note elsewhere that you cannot give exclusivity on those matters where this article is with TV and Radio, see Articles I11 and I12  in which the Rangers argument is in reverse and favours the SPFL.

 

The problem with Rangers is they have not provided the SPFL with details of that contract with the Parks Motor Group, nor any other conflicting agreement with a company entered into with an exclusive only contract.  Just for clarity the SPFL have not granted approval for this, neither have they been informed of such a deal.  And Parks Motor Group are NOT registered as an approved partner.

 

Now we have had experience In this before, where Rangers are going by the Interpretation of the 4th Official in which we all clung onto this bell-ends subject matter expertise, only we still got shafted.

 

What Rangers and the 4th Official is hanging onto is this item king of blows all arguments out of the water  G46 on Page 96:

Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-
Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other
sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the
Board.
 

That is indeed the smoking gun Rangers failed to provide in their dodgy dossier, which we all hoped would have that silver bullet…Sorry but read the whole contract?

 

Note this rule on page 99 also adds weight to the SPFL case that the Parks Motor Group does not have approval as its contract has not been approved neither is it on display in the stadium, shirts or formal advertisement, The Tomket deal was done this season along with the Cinch deal, this can be the only argument Rangers have is if they provided exclusitvity and the Cinch deal is in breach of that and that the SPFL approved the deal, then in which case the Cinch deal is off and somebody in the SPFL (guess who) should lose their job, but then this rule will work in either case:

 

G64.4 each such sponsor to be notified to the Secretary for prior approval by the
Board, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, each Season,
not later than fourteen days before the first televised match in which the
advertisement of such sponsor is to be displayed, unless special
dispensation is given by the Board in respect of this requirement.

 

Just for clarity a rule has been tightened up that would now go in our favour if it was to manifest its self, on page 36 read this:

 

C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of ALL League Matches in the
Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during
the next Season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit out of the loop on this one, but are Rangers basically kicking up a fuss over the Cinch sponsorship of the league, because it clashes against their own sponsorship deals?

 

If so, why did it not matter when Hearts were sponsored by Ukio Bankas, but the league was sponsored by Bank of Scotland, and then Clydesdale Bank?  Why did it not matter when Rangers were sponsored by 32Red and the league was sponsored by Ladbrokes?  In fact, quite a lot of teams, including Motherwell and Hibs, have had betting sponsors whilst Ladbrokes sponsored the league.

 

I don't really understand what they're moaning about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

Ok for what It’s worth, here is my take on how this is interpreted.  I am trying to be impartial, although choosing a side is like trying to pick up a jobby by the clean end!

 

Rangers Claim they don’t have to wear the Cinch Livery deal  based on Rule I7.1 page 113:

that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule


I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company.

 

Rangers claim that the Cinch deal was agreed after they went into partnership with the Parks Motor Group and the deal with Cinch would be in commercial breach, and as such this Rule takes into account of that.  They are therefore not going to use the logo, advertising boards backdrops for TV etc.  However if fails to note elsewhere that you cannot give exclusivity on those matters where this article is with TV and Radio, see Articles I11 and I12  in which the Rangers argument is in reverse and favours the SPFL.

 

The problem with Rangers is they have not provided the SPFL with details of that contract with the Parks Motor Group, nor any other conflicting agreement with a company entered into with an exclusive only contract.  Just for clarity the SPFL have not granted approval for this, neither have they been informed of such a deal.  And Parks Motor Group are NOT registered as an approved partner.

 

Now we have had experience In this before, where Rangers are going by the Interpretation of the 4th Official in which we all clung onto this bell-ends subject matter expertise, only we still got shafted.

 

What Rangers and the 4th Official is hanging onto is this item king of blows all arguments out of the water  G46 on Page 96:

Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-
Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other
sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the
Board.
 

That is indeed the smoking gun Rangers failed to provide in their dodgy dossier, which we all hoped would have that silver bullet…Sorry but read the whole contract?

 

Note this rule on page 99 also adds weight to the SPFL case that the Parks Motor Group does not have approval as its contract has not been approved neither is it on display in the stadium, shirts or formal advertisement, The Tomket deal was done this season along with the Cinch deal, this can be the only argument Rangers have is if they provided exclusitvity and the Cinch deal is in breach of that and that the SPFL approved the deal, then in which case the Cinch deal is off and somebody in the SPFL (guess who) should lose their job, but then this rule will work in either case:

 

G64.4 each such sponsor to be notified to the Secretary for prior approval by the
Board, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, each Season,
not later than fourteen days before the first televised match in which the
advertisement of such sponsor is to be displayed, unless special
dispensation is given by the Board in respect of this requirement.

 

Just for clarity a rule has been tightened up that would now go in our favour if it was to manifest its self, on page 36 read this:

 

C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of ALL League Matches in the
Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during
the next Season.

 

Hmmm... has a stench of 'here's an opportunity to noise up the SPFL' about it (which I'm all for!)

 

...and as for this - 'C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of ALL League Matches in the
Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during the next Season.'
...interesting that the wording has changed(I think it used to be 'completion of the season'.) However, if the unthinkable was to happen again, the cabal would still word some convoluted vote where (for prize bribes to be awarded) all clubs must vote to end the season - thereby absolving dungcaster and the cabal from any blame as 'they only act out the wishes of the clubs'. Twats. This set up just depresses me!

dung.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TyphoonJambo
4 minutes ago, tian447 said:

I'm a bit out of the loop on this one, but are Rangers basically kicking up a fuss over the Cinch sponsorship of the league, because it clashes against their own sponsorship deals?

 

If so, why did it not matter when Hearts were sponsored by Ukio Bankas, but the league was sponsored by Bank of Scotland, and then Clydesdale Bank?  Why did it not matter when Rangers were sponsored by 32Red and the league was sponsored by Ladbrokes?  In fact, quite a lot of teams, including Motherwell and Hibs, have had betting sponsors whilst Ladbrokes sponsored the league.

 

I don't really understand what they're moaning about.

As I understand it its part of the cinch deal that all teams have a small cinch badge 9n their arms. All other sponsorship is unaffected.  However,the Rangers have refused to send their kits for this to happen as one of the inner cabal has another car related business,though nothing to do with online car sales. Could be wrong though.

Edited by TypoonJambo
Predictive text,again
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of ALL League Matches in the
Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during
the next Season.

 

 

Going off the main topic but this doesn't really seem to achieve what was presumably intended.

 

If the events of season 19/20 were repeated and clubs voted to end the season early then it could be argued that all league matches had been completed. Still open to interpretation and legal challenge.

 

They need to insert a number e.g. following completion of all 33 matches by all 12 clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz
17 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

This is all about getting rid of Doncaster. I’d love us to get involved to put more pressure on the *****. 

not just doncaster his fat tim mate as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

This is all about getting rid of Doncaster. I’d love us to get involved to put more pressure on the *****. 

 

Exactly. Once again Rangers have made the mistake of trying to do it themselves and it becomes the rest of the league v. one club.

 

Getting rid of Doncaster is much harder than getting rid of a Board member. Normally a Chief Executive would move on to another job after a few years but not surprisingly he isn't awash with offers. Paid a fortune and has done nothing to promote Scottish football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874

Open and shut case.. rangers either have a contract which they can evidence in which case Doncaster and McLennan are in shit, or they do not - in which case rangers are in shit.
 

either way it’s a win win for the rest of us. The only question is what punishments are available 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TyphoonJambo
8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Open and shut case.. rangers either have a contract which they can evidence in which case Doncaster and McLennan are in shit, or they do not - in which case rangers are in shit.
 

either way it’s a win win for the rest of us. The only question is what punishments are available 

Obviously,the immediate cessation of the lower leagues and all HMFC training

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

The spfl want to refer the matter for arbitration to yes the SFA 🤣

 

We know from experience that you are playing a rigged game getting into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't part of a ref's remit each game be to check that strips are compliant with rules too......

 

Imagine the scenes that a game didn't start because a sponsors logo wasn't being shown on a strip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
20 hours ago, number-16 said:

Rangers are complying with their contractual obligations as they see them - there's nothing that they could take legal action over. It's the SPFL that will need to take legal action if they want to force Rangers to do something so the timing is outwith Rangers' control.

 

Sponsors pay more for exclusivity clauses. Just because Rangers and Tomket have deals with others that don't have those clauses, it doesn't mean that this one won't.

 

 

Contracts may have been tightened up generally but the contract the SPFL and Rangers have, in the form of the league rules, specifically rule I7, appears to allows for Rangers to do what they are doing. 

 

Only if looked at in isolation.

 

As I understand it clubs are obliged to pass all sponsorship deals to the league for scrutiny and there's no conflicting sponsorship recorded for the hun.

It makes sense, how can the league go out and get a sponsor if they don't know what exclusivity agreements the clubs have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Only if looked at in isolation.

 

As I understand it clubs are obliged to pass all sponsorship deals to the league for scrutiny and there's no conflicting sponsorship recorded for the hun.

It makes sense, how can the league go out and get a sponsor if they don't know what exclusivity agreements the clubs have?

While that may be the case it seems bizarre that a league allows members to have such exclusivity contracts that stops them (the league) from increasing it's own revenue.

 

If anything, it should be the opposite, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Only if looked at in isolation.

 

As I understand it clubs are obliged to pass all sponsorship deals to the league for scrutiny and there's no conflicting sponsorship recorded for the hun.

It makes sense, how can the league go out and get a sponsor if they don't know what exclusivity agreements the clubs have?

Only shirt sponsorships need approval by the SPFL board (G64.4). I can't find any other reference to sponsorships needing board approval.

 

That may rule out Tomket Tyres as the conflict, unless the SPFL have read that deal differently to Rangers.

 

(As an aside, I now wonder if the away kits were originally going to say Only Hearts and the board refused)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

While that may be the case it seems bizarre that a league allows members to have such exclusivity contracts that stops them (the league) from increasing it's own revenue.

 

If anything, it should be the opposite, surely?

It should be the opposite but this is the successor of an organisation that signed a TV deal guaranteeing four Old Firm games that they had no right to guarantee.

 

The people who draft rules and contracts are expected to think of these things through. It's part of the reasoning behind the contra proferentem (against the drafter/offeror) legal principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
12 minutes ago, number-16 said:

Only shirt sponsorships need approval by the SPFL board (G64.4). I can't find any other reference to sponsorships needing board approval.

 

That may rule out Tomket Tyres as the conflict, unless the SPFL have read that deal differently to Rangers.

 

(As an aside, I now wonder if the away kits were originally going to say Only Hearts and the board refused)

I'm glad you've looked into this, I really could not be arsed. Interestinger and interestinger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible
20 hours ago, gnasher75 said:

 

Going off the main topic but this doesn't really seem to achieve what was presumably intended.

 

If the events of season 19/20 were repeated and clubs voted to end the season early then it could be argued that all league matches had been completed. Still open to interpretation and legal challenge.

 

They need to insert a number e.g. following completion of all 33 matches by all 12 clubs.

No the wording has changed to include ALL league games, this will ensure the league if the season ends due to it being cut short, there will be no relegation, However being declared Champions is all about at the END of the season item C38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruickie's Moustache

Not being following this one in any great depth, but while many fans would like to see Doncaster and the SPFL get a sore one, T'Rangers do not seem to have picked the best fight here. 

 

While the Cinch deal may not be great, as was seen during the emergence of Covid, the majority of SPFL clubs, when offered, will gladly take a tenner and a packet of pickled onion crisps given the generally dire financial straits many of them find themselves.

 

Currently the other 41 clubs will not be up for a fight and as such T'Rangers are on their own.

 

The new club has previous history in terms of having a hissy fit with contracts and the likes, generally led by Dave King.

Their record in the courts is pretty poor, especially in relation to challenging kit deals with Sports Direct,  and the amount they have paid out in legal fees over the last few years must be substantial.

 

Can see this one going the same way. Like their CL campaign a lot of noise,  bluster and press coverage but quietly slopping off when they come a cropper.

Edited by Cruickie's Moustache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone Striker
15 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

No the wording has changed to include ALL league games, this will ensure the league if the season ends due to it being cut short, there will be no relegation, However being declared Champions is all about at the END of the season item C38

Was there a vote by member clubs to approve this wording change ?    So if there's a repeat of 19/20,  champions are declared but no-one gets relegated ?

   

Surely there has to be another side to this triangle - namely do the champions of Championship/L1/L2  get promoted or not ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit
5 hours ago, TypoonJambo said:

Obviously,the immediate cessation of the lower leagues and all HMFC training

Makes total sense. Can’t have Hearts just swanning around, keeping their heads down and practicing. As Billy Connolly says

”they’re up to something, scheming”

We’ll  definitely be punished. 🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Was there a vote by member clubs to approve this wording change ?    So if there's a repeat of 19/20,  champions are declared but no-one gets relegated ?

   

Surely there has to be another side to this triangle - namely do the champions of Championship/L1/L2  get promoted or not ?

 

 

 

 The relevant rule here would appear to be C20

At the end of each Season the Clubs occupying positions 1 in the Championship (13 in the League), 1 in League One (23 in the League) and 1 in League Two (33 in the League) will be promoted to play and be eligible to participate in the Premiership, the Championship and League One respectively for the immediately succeeding Season.
 

This sits fine with rule C19 about relegation from the Championship and League 1

At the end of each Season the Clubs occupying position 10 in each of the Championship (22 in the League) and League One (32 in the League) will be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in League One and League Two respectively for the immediately succeeding Season.

I can't see any reference to there needing to be a vacancy in the Premiership but the league rules are a 306 page document and I may have missed something. Equally the added reference to "all League Matches" seems only have been inserted for the Premiership.

This may have been done to allow for a situation like in other countries where they played out the remaining fixtures in the top leagues while curtailing the lower leagues. It would make more sense to cover this more explicitly in the rules as otherwise the inconsistent use of a still vague term could cause problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that Rangers, or any other club, do not give a flying feck for any other club in Scotland - a painful lesson I hope AnnexBudge has learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2021 at 14:30, BarneyBattles said:

 

I think you're right - remember the SPFL asked clubs to vote for the board to have powers to decide how a season should end in the event of something similar happening and that was voted down (or was so unpopular it didn't actually go to a formal vote - can't remember which).  

 

Accordingly, it would seem odd that the SPFL have changed the rules without consulting the member clubs as it would be a direct contradiction of my first sentence and would also mean a dilution of prize money if the premiership increased the amount of clubs.

 

As the board consistently states, they merely represent the members so have no power to change the rules without consent. 

I think it did go to a formal vote and was voted down, as I remember thinking at the time that this was surely akin to a vote of no confidence in the SPFL Board.

 

Although knowing how slippery Doncaster and his cronies are, maybe it was a vote to agree to holding a vote to hand power to the SPFL, so when the clubs voted against it, they weren't voting against the SPFL being granted the power, just voting against the idea of holding a vote to decide if the SPFL should be granted power.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The row between Rangers and the Scottish Professional Football League over the Premiership champions' refusal to comply with the league's new sponsor, cinch, will be settled by the decision of one high-profile legal expert after both parties agreed to abide by his decision. (The Herald On Sunday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The row between Rangers and the Scottish Professional Football League over the Premiership champions' refusal to comply with the league's new sponsor, cinch, will be settled by the decision of one high-profile legal expert after both parties agreed to abide by his decision. (The Herald On Sunday


Who has the largest brown envelope…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The row between Rangers and the Scottish Professional Football League over the Premiership champions' refusal to comply with the league's new sponsor, cinch, will be settled by the decision of one high-profile legal expert after both parties agreed to abide by his decision. (The Herald On Sunday

Arbitration again. We know how that goes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in space
39 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The row between Rangers and the Scottish Professional Football League over the Premiership champions' refusal to comply with the league's new sponsor, cinch, will be settled by the decision of one high-profile legal expert after both parties agreed to abide by his decision. (The Herald On Sunday

Donald Findlay???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Arbitration halted?

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532523.rangers-chairman-halts-scottish-fa-arbitration-case-court-win/

 

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.

The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.

A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.

“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.

“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fozzyonthefence
34 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Arbitration halted?

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532523.rangers-chairman-halts-scottish-fa-arbitration-case-court-win/

 

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.

The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.

A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.

“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.

“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.”


Oh dear, Doncaster is looking rather silly now!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


Oh dear, Doncaster is looking rather silly now!  

 

Meant to be a qualified lawyer.

 

Not even any good at that either.

 

Prick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Arbitration halted?

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532523.rangers-chairman-halts-scottish-fa-arbitration-case-court-win/

 

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.

The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.

A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.

“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.

“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.”

 

 

Good. Arbitration is a total nonsense and just adds more secrecy to an obviously bent and manipulated process. 

 

Play this out in the open and humiliate that rodent faced weasel publicly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Arbitration halted?

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532523.rangers-chairman-halts-scottish-fa-arbitration-case-court-win/

 

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.

The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.

A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.

“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.

“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.”

Interesting times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part_time_jambo
On 11/08/2021 at 08:09, kingantti1874 said:

Open and shut case.. rangers either have a contract which they can evidence in which case Doncaster and McLennan are in shit, or they do not - in which case rangers are in shit.
 

either way it’s a win win for the rest of us. The only question is what punishments are available 

That won't be written down anywhere as the punishment depends on which team it is to be applied to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

This is where we find out if the SPFL/SFA have teeth or are toothless as many believe them to be when it comes with dealing with the ugly sisters.

Personally I am in the toothless camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS

So I assume Sevco won't be taking any of the sponsorship cash. Or will Cinch just dump the deal and leave the rest with nothing. I know the deal is crap but cash is cash at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sevco basically want to run Scottish football same as oldco did. Side letters, imperfect registrations will soon be back. No sporting advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

This is where we find out if the SPFL/SFA have teeth or are toothless as many believe them to be when it comes with dealing with the ugly sisters.

Personally I am in the toothless camp.

Will come down to the legal interpretation of the SPFl rules and Cinch contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...