Restonbabe Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 The SFA is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club. But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch. But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge. Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case. The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards. The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships. The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict. The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process. The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates. But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party. Gerry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved. He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position". He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute." He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk". Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended. A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail. It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest. After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach". It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL". The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. “The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. 26 MENU NEWS HOME NEWS 20th October SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship By Martin Williams @Martin1Williams SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship 26 ADVERTISEMENT UK ‘Lotto Winner’ Reveals Life After Blowing £10m Jackpot Promoted by Amzt THE Scottish Football Association is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club. But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch. But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge. ADVERTISEMENT SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT ADVERTISEMENT ▼ Scroll for more ▼ Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case. The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards. The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships. ADVERTISING The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict. The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process. The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates. But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party. by Taboola How I saved £££ on my children's toysWHIRLI| SPONSORED Learn More Gerry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved. ADVERTISING He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position". He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute." He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk". Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended. A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail. It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest. After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach". It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL". The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. “The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. “Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.” Last month, judge Lord Braid heard advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC - who has been representing the SPFL - say that bosses at Rangers Football Club Ltd spoke to chiefs at cinch about renaming the club’s stadium earlier this year. The lawyer told the Court of Session that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’ The club denied the claim. Following the hearing, a statement from Rangers read: “Cinch approached Rangers to discuss commercial opportunities in early 2021. “Rangers provided information on what opportunities might become available. This is common practice for our commercial team. “At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers. Contrary to the SPFL’s claims, no ‘negotiations’ took place." Basically wondering what the last point of claiming that cinch approached rangers to see how much it cost to rename ibrox and getting told to bolt. Delighted a member club had managed to get another 1up on the spfl/sfa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyphoonJambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Got to be another nail in Doncaster's coffin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will-i-am-a-jambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, TypoonJambo said: Got to be another nail in Doncaster's coffin. Ive been thinking that for years, the guy is made of Teflon unfortunately! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, TypoonJambo said: Got to be another nail in Doncaster's coffin. Ian Maxwell's. He is head honcho at the SFA. I still believe the dispute with the SPGL is ongoing Sevco have won a battle but not the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Good, the more the SPFL are shown up for the charlatans they are and that their rules mean absolutely nothing in the real world the better. In England I think we will see Newcastle win their first battle with this ridiculous rule that companies linked with the owners can’t invest in the club being shown to be illegal, clubs up here would go bust if it was introduced here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 It is good in many ways that the SFA/SPFL are being shown up again for their incompetence. The only down suide of this outcome is that Doncaster, Maxwell and their blazered mates will not lose out on this it is the rest of the clubs in Scottish Football who will pay for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been here before Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 How do you save £££s on your childrens toys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Hopefully expedites the exit of some horrible characters at the SPFL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, been here before said: How do you save £££s on your childrens toys? I was wondering that and how bad the ad must be that its greyed out and you have to click for more…. “Money off your flares click here” “buy your half and half rangers and hearts scarf - unique all blue and orange colours” 🤷🏻♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said: Hopefully expedites the exit of some horrible characters at the SPFL Indeed sadly i doubt it. Doncaster should have been gone a long time ago. I haven’t read the full article but could that mean that Cinch can pull out of the deal now or be due money back 😑 Money to be taken back from lower leafue clubs to fund refund to Cinch , Rangers and Celtic said to be delighted to keep their share Edited October 21, 2021 by sadj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher75 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 As far as I understand it, all that has happened so far is that the court has said Parks should be represented in the SFA arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, sadj said: Indeed sadly i doubt it. Doncaster should have been gone a long time ago. I haven’t read the full article but could that mean that Cinch can pull out of the deal now or be due money back 😑 Money to be taken back from lower leafue clubs to fund refund to Cinch , Rangers and Celtic said to be delighted to keep their share ...Tv companies last year, Cinch this year... I wonder who we'll have to pay back next year through gross governance incompetence? ... as long as dungcatser et al DON'T have to repay any of their wages, I'll sleep easy! 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 10 minutes ago, gnasher75 said: As far as I understand it, all that has happened so far is that the court has said Parks should be represented in the SFA arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL. Yup , the simple fact there has to be arbitration though would suggest to me (being a fully qualified lawyer) that the deal would be in jeopardy or be open to monies being paid back🤷🏻♂️. (I may or may not be a fully qualified lawyer depending on wether this is correct or not) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said: ...Tv companies last year, Cinch this year... I wonder who we'll have to pay back next year through gross governance incompetence? ... as long as dungcatser et al DON'T have to repay any of their wages, I'll sleep easy! 🙄 Aye , Doncaster due massive bonus for Cinch deal **** up. A spokesman for Celtic said “Neil did incredibly well getting such a shit deal as we’d been without sponsorship since companies realised we are tinpot up here due to Neil’s actions” they went on to say “Neil will on top of his regular £300ish k wage now be entitled to another ten year deal sanctioned by himself and a bonus of £1trillion dong for representing the OF so well to the detriment of other clubs and our national team” they finished off by saying “We would like to thank Neil for his continued support in doing **** all to improve the game here , bring money in or lay down rules that may help to make us more competitive in Europe as it allows us to fleece our fans by claiming we are the victim of the shit provincial clubs” We did try to get an answer as to how the other clubs are all provincial due to the dictionary definition of the word but they then threatened to ban us from the ground so we took their boaby and said thank you Edited October 21, 2021 by sadj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, sadj said: Aye , Doncaster due massive bonus for Cinch deal **** up. A spokesman for Celtic said “Neil did incredibly well getting such a shit deal as we’d been without sponsorship since companies realised we are tinpot up here due to Neil’s actions” they went on to say “Neil will on top of his regular £300ish k wage now be entitled to another ten year deal sanctioned by himself and a bonus of £1trillion dong for representing the OF so well to the detriment of other clubs and our national team” they finished off by saying “We would like to thank Neil for his continued support in doing **** all to improve the game here , bring money in pr lay down rules that may help to make us more competitive in Europe as it allows us to fleece our fans by claiming we are the victim of the shit provincial clubs” We did try to get an answer as to how the other clubs are all provincial due to the dictionary definition of the word but they then threatened to ban us from the ground so we took their boaby and said thank you 🤣🤣... if you'd said 'an unnamed source' as opposed to 'spokesman for Celtic'.... I've would defo have believed it to be a DR piece from Keef Jackass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Be a shame if every club had to pay pack money on top of the covid losses. Be a real shame. Be even more of a shame if Anderson bailed us out while every other club had to pay back some money. I bet a few chairmen ( and pundits) will " whine like pigs" if that happenes. Be a shame if clubs that got promoted after the vote found themselves in a problem. Be a further shame if clubs that lost emails or blocked change because of bus fares were effected by this down the line. Be a real ****ing shame. After all there has to be winners and losers, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Jambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 The heading of the thread is misleading. 'Park's of Hamilton win dispute with SFA' would be accurate. All that has happened is that Park's of Hamilton have won the right to be involved in the SFA run arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL (with the costs of the court reaching that conclusion being paid by the SFA). Despite the quotes at the end from Rangers, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the governance of the SPFL, it is overturning a decision made by the SFA. We still don't know who will 'win' the arbitration between SPFL and Rangers. That is the one to look out for and will reflect really badly on Doncaster if the SPFL loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Just now, Rogue Daddy said: 🤣🤣... if you'd said 'an unnamed source' as opposed to 'spokesman for Celtic'.... I've would defo have believed it to be a DR piece from Keef Jackass! 🤣🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 I can’t think of any other organisation that’s run such a completely shambolic way. The reverse Midas touch by Doncaster and Co. Everything they lay their mits on turns to shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Deevers said: I can’t think of any other organisation that’s run such a completely shambolic way. The reverse Midas touch by Doncaster and Co. Everything they lay their mits on turns to shit. They are a shambles. If they had two clear options they'd go the wrong way. It's like they aim to be utter shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Saint Jambo said: The heading of the thread is misleading. 'Park's of Hamilton win dispute with SFA' would be accurate. All that has happened is that Park's of Hamilton have won the right to be involved in the SFA run arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL (with the costs of the court reaching that conclusion being paid by the SFA). Despite the quotes at the end from Rangers, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the governance of the SPFL, it is overturning a decision made by the SFA. We still don't know who will 'win' the arbitration between SPFL and Rangers. That is the one to look out for and will reflect really badly on Doncaster if the SPFL loses. Again I have zero lawyery type brainy stuff but surely the simple fact its SPFL v Rangers and Parks would suggest to me its now weighted in the second groups favour , the ones on the outside would be Cinch wouldn’t they. Its the SPFLs deal they are trying to get Rangers to work with and Parks to agree too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher75 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said: The heading of the thread is misleading. 'Park's of Hamilton win dispute with SFA' would be accurate. All that has happened is that Park's of Hamilton have won the right to be involved in the SFA run arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL (with the costs of the court reaching that conclusion being paid by the SFA). Despite the quotes at the end from Rangers, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the governance of the SPFL, it is overturning a decision made by the SFA. We still don't know who will 'win' the arbitration between SPFL and Rangers. That is the one to look out for and will reflect really badly on Doncaster if the SPFL loses. Exactly. Please change the thread title Mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher75 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, sadj said: Again I have zero lawyery type brainy stuff but surely the simple fact its SPFL v Rangers and Parks would suggest to me its now weighted in the second groups favour , the ones on the outside would be Cinch wouldn’t they. Its the SPFLs deal they are trying to get Rangers to work with and Parks to agree too. I don't think this decision really has any impact on the arbitration itself. Don't really understand why the SFA bothered fighting it tbh. Rangers and Parks still have to produce a pre-existing contract which prevents them from participating in the cinch deal and it's not clear it actually exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Jambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, sadj said: Again I have zero lawyery type brainy stuff but surely the simple fact its SPFL v Rangers and Parks would suggest to me its now weighted in the second groups favour , the ones on the outside would be Cinch wouldn’t they. Its the SPFLs deal they are trying to get Rangers to work with and Parks to agree too. Not sure. It doesn't really change the facts of what is in the contracts and Park's will presumably be arguing an identical position to Rangers. I'd imagine that now it has been established that non-football organisations can be involved that Cinch might ask to be represented too. I think Hearts should ask to be included as an interested party as well now. We could run a raffle to pick a season ticket holder to attend who would just mutter insults and expletives throughout the entire proceedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Scenes Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 how do you blow 10 million quid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 17 minutes ago, Absolute Scenes said: how do you blow 10 million quid Straight up your nose over a good weekend I'd imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Cinch will be loving this. Exponentially more publicity than they would have got if the Rangers just went along with the branding. Plus the potential to be refunded for the terms of the sponsorship not being realised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 53 minutes ago, gnasher75 said: As far as I understand it, all that has happened so far is that the court has said Parks should be represented in the SFA arbitration process between Rangers and the SPFL. In a nutshell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 14 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said: Straight up your nose over a good weekend I'd imagine. You buying your marching powder direct from the jungles of Colombia and having it flown over on the weekend like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 36 minutes ago, Absolute Scenes said: how do you blow 10 million quid On a 25 goals-a-season striker and a RWB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 43 minutes ago, Absolute Scenes said: how do you blow 10 million quid fancy flashing disco lights... to celebrate winning something 8.75 times in a row! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 hour ago, sadj said: Indeed sadly i doubt it. Doncaster should have been gone a long time ago. I haven’t read the full article but could that mean that Cinch can pull out of the deal now or be due money back 😑 Money to be taken back from lower leafue clubs to fund refund to Cinch , Rangers and Celtic said to be delighted to keep their share cinch will be delighted I expect. They will get some sort of financial recompense and more exposure than they would have had otherwise.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
part_time_jambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 55 minutes ago, Absolute Scenes said: how do you blow 10 million quid keep Alfredo Morelos beyond his sell by date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said: cinch will be delighted I expect. They will get some sort of financial recompense and more exposure than they would have had otherwise.. Indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 3 hours ago, Restonbabe said: The SFA is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club. But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch. But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge. Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case. The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards. The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships. The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict. The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process. The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates. But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party. Gerry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved. He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position". He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute." He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk". Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended. A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail. It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest. After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach". It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL". The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. “The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. 26 MENU NEWS HOME NEWS 20th October SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship By Martin Williams @Martin1Williams SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship 26 ADVERTISEMENT UK ‘Lotto Winner’ Reveals Life After Blowing £10m Jackpot Promoted by Amzt THE Scottish Football Association is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club. But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch. But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge. ADVERTISEMENT SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT ADVERTISEMENT ▼ Scroll for more ▼ Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case. The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards. The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships. ADVERTISING The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict. The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process. The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates. But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party. by Taboola How I saved £££ on my children's toysWHIRLI| SPONSORED Learn More Gerry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved. ADVERTISING He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position". He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute." He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk". Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended. A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail. It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest. After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach". It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL". The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. “The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. “Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.” Last month, judge Lord Braid heard advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC - who has been representing the SPFL - say that bosses at Rangers Football Club Ltd spoke to chiefs at cinch about renaming the club’s stadium earlier this year. The lawyer told the Court of Session that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’ The club denied the claim. Following the hearing, a statement from Rangers read: “Cinch approached Rangers to discuss commercial opportunities in early 2021. “Rangers provided information on what opportunities might become available. This is common practice for our commercial team. “At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers. Contrary to the SPFL’s claims, no ‘negotiations’ took place." Basically wondering what the last point of claiming that cinch approached rangers to see how much it cost to rename ibrox and getting told to bolt. Delighted a member club had managed to get another 1up on the spfl/sfa. Cinch appear to have jilted TRFC at the altar. That would explain why “no negotiations” took place over naming rights. That must have hurt as they could certainly have done with the readies. All this does is confirm that TRFC would be “pure ragin’ “ as they say, once they saw Cinch subsequently cosying up to the SPFL. I’m not convinced TRFC has any sponsorship deal as such with Park. They did have a sponsorship deal with a betting outfit whilst playing in Ladbrokes-sponsored Scottish football but it seems there was no perceived conflict of interest in that scenario. TRFC will certainly use Park’s busses 🚌 and I can see why Park would be strongly opposed to a rival company being promoted at Ibrox. Given Park’s largesse to date, I can also see why TRFC would want to support him over this. How are these wrangles affecting Cinch’s sponsorship deal? Have Hearts and other clubs received any benefits from the deal or is everything on hold in the meantime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyk Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Absolute Scenes said: how do you blow 10 million quid Buy as many Hib$ tokens a you can in the hope it will make you a Billionaire and then realise it is just some American shite to bankrupt you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 2 hours ago, gnasher75 said: I don't think this decision really has any impact on the arbitration itself. Don't really understand why the SFA bothered fighting it tbh. Rangers and Parks still have to produce a pre-existing contract which prevents them from participating in the cinch deal and it's not clear it actually exists. I can well understand why they wouldn't want Park's to be represented on the arbitration. They don't do transparency and certainly wouldn't want any legal representative of Park's to be party to the discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy T Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Does this whole thing not revolve around 1 document that so far Rangers haven’t shown the SPFL (or they have and the SPFL say they haven’t) Someone is going to look very incompetent in all of this if it’s the Rangers dock them 10 points if it’s Doncaster and co then surely even he can’t survive this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 13 minutes ago, RobNox said: I can well understand why they wouldn't want Park's to be represented on the arbitration. They don't do transparency and certainly wouldn't want any legal representative of Park's to be party to the discussions. I think the SFA don’t think Park should be represented is because they don’t believe he has a sponsorship deal with TRFC. Park has a serious personal financial interest in proceedings granted, but as I understand it, Park only figures if there’s a “contractual obligation” between himself and the club for a similar deal which pre-dates the Cinch-SPFL deal. Evidence of such a contract would allow TRFC to opt-out of the SPFL deal. I’m not aware that Park/TRFC have provided this evidence to date although I could be wrong. If I’m right, I don’t really see why Park has been afforded representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Surely the obvious solution is that Rangers forego their share of the sponsorship money ie end of season winnings and it is either returned to cinch or goes to the other clubs depending on what cinch want to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 16 minutes ago, Spellczech said: Surely the obvious solution is that Rangers forego their share of the sponsorship money ie end of season winnings and it is either returned to cinch or goes to the other clubs depending on what cinch want to do? Just about to say the same. Give them no sponsor money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 4 hours ago, Saint Jambo said: Not sure. It doesn't really change the facts of what is in the contracts and Park's will presumably be arguing an identical position to Rangers. I'd imagine that now it has been established that non-football organisations can be involved that Cinch might ask to be represented too. I think Hearts should ask to be included as an interested party as well now. We could run a raffle to pick a season ticket holder to attend who would just mutter insults and expletives throughout the entire proceedings. we have a poster on here who is renowned for his way with words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamorgan Jambo Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 The reason the SPFL are engaged in very costly litigation is they know that Parks are under no obligation to keep anything involved in the arbitration process out of the public domain. Whereas Rangers are. Dougie Park is playing a decent game here which I believe to be in the best interests of Scottish football. If not the SPFL executive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex member of the SaS Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 I can't think of ever seeing any Parks adverts at Ibrokes. Only watched the ground on tv so may have missed something but unless they can prove this deal existed ( showing adverts around the ground etc ) then I can't see how Sevco can claim a previous deal with Parks. OK they may use his buses but where are the used car ads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Spellczech said: Surely the obvious solution is that Rangers forego their share of the sponsorship money ie end of season winnings and it is either returned to cinch or goes to the other clubs depending on what cinch want to do? I don't suppose Rangers will be happy with that arrangement. Surely they would argue that if sponsorship money is withheld from them, then they are being disadvantaged because the SPFL entered into a sponsorship agreement, despite Rangers notifying the SPFL of the conflict with their existing arrangement with Parks. It could get messy, with a bit of luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 What I don't understand is that if Rangers have a contract which this sponsorship compromises why not show and stop the litigation/arbitration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Doncaster earned £389K last season, up from £339 the previous year, according to the SPFL accounts published earlier this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: Doncaster earned £389K last season, up from £339 the previous year, according to the SPFL accounts published earlier this week. It must be "grim" having to make do with a meagre pay rise of £50k 🧐 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 47 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: Doncaster earned £389K last season, up from £339 the previous year, according to the SPFL accounts published earlier this week. This is absolutely disgusting. If clubs, and their officials, are not outraged by this… then there really is no hope for our game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher75 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Footballfirst said: Doncaster earned £389K last season, up from £339 the previous year, according to the SPFL accounts published earlier this week. I dispute that! He might have been paid it but he has done nothing to earn it. 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.