Lone Striker Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 minute ago, davemclaren said: Will come down to the legal interpretation of the SPFl rules and Cinch contract. ........ and possibly where any football leanings of the legal interpreter lie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said: 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. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58311267 SPFL - "do what we say or no-one will get any prize money!"... it's their answer to everything when they want their own way. It's about time they were getting called out... I don't care if it's Rangers, Celtic (actually, it'll never be them!)... or whoever. Get them tae ****! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 16 hours ago, OTT said: 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 It won't be played out in the open though. Park's are simply now entitled to have representation at the arbitration between the SPFL & TRIFC - just like Dundee Utd were entitled to have their legal guy at our arbitration. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but the fact that Park's had to get an interdict to force the SFA to allow them to be present seems to suggest that the SFA interpretation of their own rules around arbitration are biased in favour of the SPFL defence side - happy for an interested party to attend so long as their interest aligns with the SPFL view. If that's the case, then a big "well done" to Park's for landing the first punch on the SFA/SPFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Cinch will be delighted with this. No one would have paid much if any attention to them if this hadn’t kicked off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Hearts Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 53 minutes ago, Lone Striker said: It won't be played out in the open though. Park's are simply now entitled to have representation at the arbitration between the SPFL & TRIFC - just like Dundee Utd were entitled to have their legal guy at our arbitration. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but the fact that Park's had to get an interdict to force the SFA to allow them to be present seems to suggest that the SFA interpretation of their own rules around arbitration are biased in favour of the SPFL defence side - happy for an interested party to attend so long as their interest aligns with the SPFL view. If that's the case, then a big "well done" to Park's for landing the first punch on the SFA/SPFL. Dungcaster sits on both SPFL board and SFA board so there is certainly a ‘conflict of interest’ when the SPFL board raise a case to go through SFA process. So there will will be biase by the SFA Board and them taking the SPFL side in any interpretations of the SFA rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said: Cinch will be delighted with this. No one would have paid much if any attention to them if this hadn’t kicked off Very true. And if Rangers win at arbitration and cinch then invoke some clawback clause in the contract to reduce their payments, it will be even better value for money from their point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Am I right In thinking it's only 7.5m,once you've took the 500k over 5 years getting payed to the consultants who set it up? What's Kneel Downcasters job again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said: Cinch will be delighted with this. No one would have paid much if any attention to them if this hadn’t kicked off True. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Good publicity for Parks of Hamilton too. Of course back in the day helping Hearts fans get to away games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Why should Cinch have anything to do with last season's flag?? They were not sponsors last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 On 22/08/2021 at 10:58, 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 Will they be picking this expert from our Covid thread or do they have their own wisdom at hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Lynam Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 4 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58311267 SPFL - "do what we say or no-one will get any prize money!"... it's their answer to everything when they want their own way. It's about time they were getting called out... I don't care if it's Rangers, Celtic (actually, it'll never be them!)... or whoever. Get them tae ****! This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 22, 2021 Share Posted September 22, 2021 It seems that court action is now underway. In response, TRFC have stated I think this dispute still has some way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 22, 2021 Share Posted September 22, 2021 This is the SFA appeal against this decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted September 22, 2021 Share Posted September 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: It seems that court action is now underway. In response, TRFC have stated I think this dispute still has some way to go. Oooooftttt 😲 So TRIFC are refusing to do all the "free advertising" for cinch under SPFL rules because they were hoping to make a mint out of selling them the right to do it 6 months ago ? Sounds like both sides have scored an own goal !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 On 09/08/2021 at 22:09, kingantti1874 said: We should all be backing them to win, it will be the end of the Celtic cabal who put us in the championship to protect 9IAR The end of Doncaster and McLennan once and for all Do you really think Hearts’ absence from the top tier “protected” Celtic’s chances of achieving 9IAR? Are you saying we’d have won the title? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, PortyBeach said: Do you really think Hearts’ absence from the top tier “protected” Celtic’s chances of achieving 9IAR? Are you saying we’d have won the title? No The argument was that our relegation was part of a package that included awarding Celtic the title when they hadn't won it. Not choosing to null and void the leagues instead. Edited September 23, 2021 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said: No The argument was that our relegation was part of a package that included awarding Celtic the title when they hadn't won it. Fair point. No logic to that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 14 hours ago, Lone Striker said: Oooooftttt 😲 So TRIFC are refusing to do all the "free advertising" for cinch under SPFL rules because they were hoping to make a mint out of selling them the right to do it 6 months ago ? Sounds like both sides have scored an own goal !!! Wha happened to them only trying to look after the interests of one of their directors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 All this proves, to me anyway, is never ever trust either of the OF. The league are negotiating a deal with Cinch to sponsor the league. Sevco know this as their man is on the SPFL board, but at the sametime, Sevco are negotiating with the same company to give them stadium naming rights(without letting their supporters know), it also tells you that Cinch are not to be trusted either. If the SPFL had any balls, the Sevco representative would be removed from the board forthwith and replaced by A. N. Other, but not from Celtic. Scottish football as bent as a £9 note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) Fundamentally, TRFC are struggling financially and Douglas Park has been a mainstay in supplying soft loans from his own back pocket to keep things afloat. It’s perhaps no big surprise they’re desperate enough to offer naming rights to Cinch. But is that negotiation still live given the apparent SPFL deal? Would Cinch risk the reputational damage if they were found to be playing both parties against one another? Whatever TRFC’s motives here, they seem disenchanted with Doncaster. Which is surprising given that he conferred all the trophy wins of the liquidated club (debts of £134M) onto the new club and helped promote the myth of continuity: “55” and all that. All those trophies and debt-free. Perhaps TRFC want a more Ibrox-leaning head honcho than Doncaster and see this as a way of unseating him? Either way, it’s a classic example of the Ibrox sense of entitlement - so it seems some things have indeed continued. For all his faults, our own dear Vlad saw through the corruption in Scottish football and commented back in the day: “The football mafia represented by Rangers’ former owners should not be allowed back under any circumstances. Victories were achieved not by sporting merits but through slander, conspiracies amongst players, and their poaching via third parties.” Edited September 23, 2021 by PortyBeach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 4 hours ago, PortyBeach said: Do you really think Hearts’ absence from the top tier “protected” Celtic’s chances of achieving 9IAR? Are you saying we’d have won the title? no. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 5 hours ago, John Findlay said: All this proves, to me anyway, is never ever trust either of the OF. The league are negotiating a deal with Cinch to sponsor the league. Sevco know this as their man is on the SPFL board, but at the sametime, Sevco are negotiating with the same company to give them stadium naming rights(without letting their supporters know), it also tells you that Cinch are not to be trusted either. If the SPFL had any balls, the Sevco representative would be removed from the board forthwith and replaced by A. N. Other, but not from Celtic. Scottish football as bent as a £9 note. Spot on there. 👍 Imagine if it was Hearts doing this while Ann Budge was on the SPFL board. The Compliance Officer would be on double overtime to come up with a list of punishments asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 The SFA's appeal against the interim interdict granted to Parks of Hamilton has been thrown out by the Court of Session. It means that the SFA has to include Parks in any arbitration process. https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19660715.rangers-chairman-douglas-park-clinches-court-win-spfl-fight/ More money lost on paying legal fees by the football authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 Sorry if I seem confused, perhaps someone will explain: 1: TRFC do not want cinch branding at Ibrox because they have a deal with Park's. 2: TRFC were negotiating to give cinch naming rights to Ibrox. So, what were they going to do with Park's if the naming rights had gone through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said: Sorry if I seem confused, perhaps someone will explain: 1: TRFC do not want cinch branding at Ibrox because they have a deal with Park's. 2: TRFC were negotiating to give cinch naming rights to Ibrox. So, what were they going to do with Park's if the naming rights had gone through? Don't worry - pretty much everything the SFA/SPFL do or say is confusing !! From the article posted on here, it looks like cinch made the approach to TRIFC about getting their name on Ibrox ..... TRIFC are saying it never got as far as negotiating. So its not clear what they'd have done about any Parks sponsorship if they had entered into negotiations. If thats accurate, their assertion of commercial sensitivity/conflict as the reason for not displaying cinch adverts now seems a bit strange. They may just be miffed that cinch got the publicity via the SPFL for less than than they would have charged for renaming Ibrox !! Even more strange is why the SFA would appeal the interim interdict decision to allow Parks to be represented at an arbitration hearing. They were quite happy to have a 3rd party (Dundee Utd) represented at our arbitration last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said: Don't worry - pretty much everything the SFA/SPFL do or say is confusing !! From the article posted on here, it looks like cinch made the approach to TRIFC about getting their name on Ibrox ..... TRIFC are saying it never got as far as negotiating. So its not clear what they'd have done about any Parks sponsorship if they had entered into negotiations. If thats accurate, their assertion of commercial sensitivity/conflict as the reason for not displaying cinch adverts now seems a bit strange. They may just be miffed that cinch got the publicity via the SPFL for less than than they would have charged for renaming Ibrox !! Even more strange is why the SFA would appeal the interim interdict decision to allow Parks to be represented at an arbitration hearing. They were quite happy to have a 3rd party (Dundee Utd) represented at our arbitration last year. 👌 So I guess TRIFID will be refusing any prize money from cinch the season... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number-16 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 hours ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said: 👌 So I guess TRIFID will be refusing any prize money from cinch the season... It's only £1.6 million a year between 42 clubs, before any deductions. Even if Rangers won the league their share of that would be £215,000 at most. That's pocket change to them, it wouldn't even cover the wages they've spent on 8 minutes of Jermain Defoe so far this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.