Jump to content

Cinch


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rogue Daddy

    15

  • davemclaren

    14

  • Hagar the Horrible

    13

  • Lone Striker

    11

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 post
Share on other sites
JackLadd

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
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 post
Share on other sites
Lone Striker
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 :whistling: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogue Daddy
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 ****!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lone Striker
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.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874

Cinch will be delighted with this.  No one would have paid much if any attention to them if this hadn’t kicked off 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brave Hearts
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lone Striker
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.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
brunoatemyhamster

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? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
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. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Good publicity for Parks of Hamilton too. 

 

Of course back in the day helping Hearts fans get to away games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy Brown

Why should Cinch have anything to do with last season's flag??

They were not sponsors last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Des Lynam
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. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
Footballfirst

It seems that court action is now underway.

 

 

In response, TRFC have stated

 

Image

 

I think this dispute still has some way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lone Striker
7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It seems that court action is now underway.

 

 

In response, TRFC have stated

 

Image

 

I think this dispute still has some way to go.

Oooooftttt 😲:vrwow:     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 !!!   

 

Eating Popcorn GIFs | Tenor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PortyBeach
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Mikey1874
Link to post
Share on other sites
PortyBeach
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Auldbenches
14 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Oooooftttt 😲:vrwow:     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 !!!   

 

Eating Popcorn GIFs | Tenor

 

Wha happened to them only trying to look after the interests of one of their directors?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PortyBeach

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 by PortyBeach
Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
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.  😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lone Striker
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
King Of The Cat Cafe

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
King Of The Cat Cafe
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
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...