Rangers arbitration vs SPFL over Cinch deal

[Saint Jambo]

5 hours ago, PortyBeach said:

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.

 

 

 

From the story in the OP it appears the SFA's argument was that they are overseeing a football arbitration and only football organisations should be involved because they don't have any governance authority over non-football bodies. I can understand that logic. Presumably the alternative logic that the court has accepted is that Parks are saying they are an interested party so should get to put their view into the discussion, without the need for the SFA to be able to enforce any decisions on Parks.

 

4 hours ago, Boy Daniel said:

we have a poster on here who is renowned for his way with words. 

Funnily enough I was thinking of that poster.

[PortyBeach]

10 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

From the story in the OP it appears the SFA's argument was that they are overseeing a football arbitration and only football organisations should be involved because they don't have any governance authority over non-football bodies. I can understand that logic. Presumably the alternative logic that the court has accepted is that Parks are saying they are an interested party so should get to put their view into the discussion, without the need for the SFA to be able to enforce any decisions on Parks.

 

Funnily enough I was thinking of that poster.

My thinking was that Park only becomes part of that “football body” for the purposes of arbitration if he has a contract with TRFC which may be compromised by the Cinch/SPFL deal. 
I reasoned that without any such contact the SFA would only view Park as you put it, as merely an “interested party”. After all, the dispute here is about non-compliance from a member club with the SPFL.

That said, your comment on why Park has been allowed representation are probably correct.

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Was'nt going to bother with this as its resolved, but just had another confirm, that Rangers had bother paying their wages and it was hushed up, granted one of these was from a Celtic source.  Lets see the contract negotiations and the winter transfer window.  That said I think Sevco will run up further debt and still do their guerilla warfare against the SPFL

[Bazzas right boot]

22 hours ago, sadj said:

You buying your marching powder direct from the jungles of Colombia and having it flown over on the weekend like 

 

Why, you wanting some? 

 

😂

[Footballfirst]

The written judgement of the SFA's appeal to the Inner House of the COS was published today.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csih61.pdf?sfvrsn=f0711814_1

 

This extract confirms Park's claim about a pre existing contract with Rangers.

 

The petitioners specialise in the sale of new and used cars. They have a longstanding commercial relationship with Rangers. This includes advertisement by Rangers of the petitioners’ business. A written contract has been in existence since June 2015. It was renewed on 17 May 2021. The following month the SPFL entered into a sponsorship contract with Cinch; a business concerned in the sale of second-hand cars. Previously, Rangers had expressed their concerns to the SPFL that the terms of the two contracts might conflict with one another. Subsequently, Rangers have refused: (a) to provide the SPFL with the rights, facilities and properties required under SPFL’s contract with Cinch; and (b) to produce a copy of their contract with the petitioners.

[Mikey1874]

I've said from day 1 that Rangers will win this. 

 

The SFA's actions so far including leaking information suggest they know that too. 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

I've said from day 1 that Rangers will win this. 

 

The SFA's actions so far including leaking information suggest they know that too. 

A "contract" may well exist, but Rangers/Park's will still have to show that the terms of the contract preclude performance of the club's obligations to the SPFL and cinch.

[Spellczech]

Don't remember Vlad kicking up a fuss on behalf of UKIO Bankas about the Clydesdale Bank replacing Bank of Scotland as SPL sponsors in 2007...

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Don't remember Vlad kicking up a fuss on behalf of UKIO Bankas about the Clydesdale Bank replacing Bank of Scotland as SPL sponsors in 2007...

The BOS sponsorship pre dated Ukio Bankas' sponsorship of Hearts, so it is highly unlikely that Ukio's contract with Hearts prevented the Clydesdale Bank from exercising similar rights to those held by BOS

[John Findlay]

20 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

A "contract" may well exist, but Rangers/Park's will still have to show that the terms of the contract preclude performance of the club's obligations to the SPFL and cinch.

The way I am reading this is that Sevco are saying they have had a contract with Parks since 2012, was that after they did their Lazarus impression or did the contract die when Rangers died? 

They are claiming the contract was renewed in May this year, but have yet to provide paperwork to prove this?

[Footballfirst]

9 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

The way I am reading this is that Sevco are saying they have had a contract with Parks since 2012, was that after they did their Lazarus impression or did the contract die when Rangers died? 

They are claiming the contract was renewed in May this year, but have yet to provide paperwork to prove this?

The claim is that the original contact dates from 2015 (shortly after the "concert party" ousted Mike Ashley's people),  As I said above the arbitration will hinge on the terms of the contract with Park's, i.e. does it explicitly state that Sevco could not enter into or fulfil a contractual arrangement with another car vendor (an exclusivity clause).

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Footballfirst

[gnasher75]

Still bizarre that a written contract exists (since 2015, renewed May 2021) but Rangers have refused to produce a copy. Has the judge seen it? Why won't Rangers publish it or at least allow the SPFL sight of it? The renewal in May 2021 is interesting timing. Was an exclusivity clause added then to prevent Rangers selling naming rights to cinch? 

 

Now that this appeal has been heard what is the delay getting the arbitration hearing done. It has been dragging on for months! If cinch end up walking away and demanding a refund of their cash, they will have got an incredible amount of free publicity. But if the SPFL can't get Rangers on board they will be well within their rights.

 

 

[OTT]

14 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

Still bizarre that a written contract exists (since 2015, renewed May 2021) but Rangers have refused to produce a copy. Has the judge seen it? Why won't Rangers publish it or at least allow the SPFL sight of it? The renewal in May 2021 is interesting timing. Was an exclusivity clause added then to prevent Rangers selling naming rights to cinch? 

 

Now that this appeal has been heard what is the delay getting the arbitration hearing done. It has been dragging on for months! If cinch end up walking away and demanding a refund of their cash, they will have got an incredible amount of free publicity. But if the SPFL can't get Rangers on board they will be well within their rights.

 

 

 

I really, really hope this ruins the SPFL and forces a breakaway league. We need to freshen things up badly and hopefully this is the catalyst for it. Hopefully if the winds change we can try and push for more meaningful change too - specifically around the voting system but perhaps the culture of the organisation too. 

[Jambo-Fox]

31 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I really, really hope this ruins the SPFL and forces a breakaway league. We need to freshen things up badly and hopefully this is the catalyst for it. Hopefully if the winds change we can try and push for more meaningful change too - specifically around the voting system but perhaps the culture of the organisation too. 

Breakaway league with no Sevco … it’s a ‘cinch’ ….

[jdl2002]

6 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Breakaway league with no Sevco … it’s a ‘cinch’ ….

i see what you did there. 

[manaliveits105]

[PortyBeach]

As I understand it, SPFL Rule I7 (that’s letter “I”) says a member club isn’t required to comply with a deal such as this one “if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned (in this case, the Cinch deal) being approved…”

As Footballfirst” suggests, much depends on the terms of the TRFC/Park “contract”.

Does it in fact contain “obligations” on TRFC that an arbitrator would say renders TRFC’s participation in the SPFL/Cinch deal void?

[IveSeenTheLight]

15 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Breakaway league with no Sevco … it’s a ‘cinch’ ….

The other cheek to join them hopefully

[Spellczech]

22 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The BOS sponsorship pre dated Ukio Bankas' sponsorship of Hearts, so it is highly unlikely that Ukio's contract with Hearts prevented the Clydesdale Bank from exercising similar rights to those held by BOS

That is not how it works though. Why would one sponsorship contract have any influence over the next? It didn't have to be the Clydesdale. It is not the case that if the league had been sponsored by Arnold Clark before Park's involvement with Rangers then this would mean Cinch would have a precedent... 

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

That is not how it works though. Why would one sponsorship contract have any influence over the next? It didn't have to be the Clydesdale. It is not the case that if the league had been sponsored by Arnold Clark before Park's involvement with Rangers then this would mean Cinch would have a precedent... 

It is exactly how it works.

 

BoS had a contract with the SPL re branding, advertising and sponsorship that all clubs were able to honour (no clubs to my knowledge had a bank sponsor when the contract was entered into). I have no idea if any exclusivity was built into that contract, although I suspect not, as it would prevent clubs from entering into new contracts with financial services companies.

 

Ukio comes along and provides shirt sponsorship and other branding and advertising at Tynecastle. They were unable to remove the BoS branding as part of their contract because of the contractual arrangement already in place with the SPL.

 

Clydesdale then comes along and replaces BoS and is able to replicate their branding, advertising and sponsorship. Ukio/Hearts couldn't object, because their contract could not have had exclusivity written into it because of the prior Bos deal.

 

Move onto the SPFL/Rangers/Parks/cinch dispute.

Parks and Rangers both claim that they have a contract dating back to 2015 (updated in May 2021) which does not permit Rangers to to display branding for another car dealer in the stadium or on their shirts. If that is the case then that contract must have an exclusivity clause written into it.    

 

The SPFL enters into a contract with cinch (after May 2021) that requires all clubs to display its branding in the stadium and on shirts. 

 

Rangers say that they have an existing contractual arrangement that prevents them fulfilling all the obligations of the cinch deal.  That situation is allowed under SPFL rules.

 

Rangers have been asked by the SPFL for evidence of this pre existing contract. To date, Rangers have not done so.  However, both parties have agreed to go down the arbitration route, which is where we are at.

 

My personal take on it is that Rangers must be confident of success to take the matter to arbitration (the loser will pay the, not inconsiderable, costs of all parties).  I suspect that Rangers were aware of early discussions with cinch before the deal was announced as Stewart Robertson is on the SPFL Board.  They then decided, for their own reasons, to deliberately create another dispute with the SPFL, by beefing up their contract with Park's (perhaps by inserting an exclusivity clause), which would allow them to avoid honouring their cinch obligations.  

 

To my mind, this is more about Rangers dislike of the SPFL Board than the minutiae of any contractual arrangements.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

 

To my mind, this is more about Rangers dislike of the SPFL Board than the minutiae of any contractual arrangements.

if I was a betting man I’d put money on that being the case.

 

Given that the SFA have so vigorously opposed the participation of Parks in the process I’d assume their concern is more down to confidentiality and potential embarrassment from eventual public disclosure of the proceedings.

 

 

[OTT]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It is exactly how it works.

 

BoS had a contract with the SPL re branding, advertising and sponsorship that all clubs were able to honour (no clubs to my knowledge had a bank sponsor when the contract was entered into). I have no idea if any exclusivity was built into that contract, although I suspect not, as it would prevent clubs from entering into new contracts with financial services companies.

 

Ukio comes along and provides shirt sponsorship and other branding and advertising at Tynecastle. They were unable to remove the BoS branding as part of their contract because of the contractual arrangement already in place with the SPL.

 

Clydesdale then comes along and replaces BoS and is able to replicate their branding, advertising and sponsorship. Ukio/Hearts couldn't object, because their contract could not have had exclusivity written into it because of the prior Bos deal.

 

Move onto the SPFL/Rangers/Parks/cinch dispute.

Parks and Rangers both claim that they have a contract dating back to 2015 (updated in May 2021) which does not permit Rangers to to display branding for another car dealer in the stadium or on their shirts. If that is the case then that contract must have an exclusivity clause written into it.    

 

The SPFL enters into a contract with cinch (after May 2021) that requires all clubs to display its branding in the stadium and on shirts. 

 

Rangers say that they have an existing contractual arrangement that prevents them fulfilling all the obligations of the cinch deal.  That situation is allowed under SPFL rules.

 

Rangers have been asked by the SPFL for evidence of this pre existing contract. To date, Rangers have not done so.  However, both parties have agreed to go down the arbitration route, which is where we are at.

 

My personal take on it is that Rangers must be confident of success to take the matter to arbitration (the loser will pay the, not inconsiderable, costs of all parties).  I suspect that Rangers were aware of early discussions with cinch before the deal was announced as Stewart Robertson is on the SPFL Board.  They then decided, for their own reasons, to deliberately create another dispute with the SPFL, by beefing up their contract with Park's (perhaps by inserting an exclusivity clause), which would allow them to avoid honouring their cinch obligations.  

 

To my mind, this is more about Rangers dislike of the SPFL Board than the minutiae of any contractual arrangements.

 

Is this just petty boardroom squabbles or do Rangers have an endgame here do you think?

 

Doncaster has always came off as Celtics man. Chummy in the extreme with Lawwell and never seeming to divert from Celtics interests. Wonder if they're looking to try and get the clubs to get rid of him at long last? 

[PortyBeach]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It is exactly how it works.

 

BoS had a contract with the SPL re branding, advertising and sponsorship that all clubs were able to honour (no clubs to my knowledge had a bank sponsor when the contract was entered into). I have no idea if any exclusivity was built into that contract, although I suspect not, as it would prevent clubs from entering into new contracts with financial services companies.

 

Ukio comes along and provides shirt sponsorship and other branding and advertising at Tynecastle. They were unable to remove the BoS branding as part of their contract because of the contractual arrangement already in place with the SPL.

 

Clydesdale then comes along and replaces BoS and is able to replicate their branding, advertising and sponsorship. Ukio/Hearts couldn't object, because their contract could not have had exclusivity written into it because of the prior Bos deal.

 

Move onto the SPFL/Rangers/Parks/cinch dispute.

Parks and Rangers both claim that they have a contract dating back to 2015 (updated in May 2021) which does not permit Rangers to to display branding for another car dealer in the stadium or on their shirts. If that is the case then that contract must have an exclusivity clause written into it.    

 

The SPFL enters into a contract with cinch (after May 2021) that requires all clubs to display its branding in the stadium and on shirts. 

 

Rangers say that they have an existing contractual arrangement that prevents them fulfilling all the obligations of the cinch deal.  That situation is allowed under SPFL rules.

 

Rangers have been asked by the SPFL for evidence of this pre existing contract. To date, Rangers have not done so.  However, both parties have agreed to go down the arbitration route, which is where we are at.

 

My personal take on it is that Rangers must be confident of success to take the matter to arbitration (the loser will pay the, not inconsiderable, costs of all parties).  I suspect that Rangers were aware of early discussions with cinch before the deal was announced as Stewart Robertson is on the SPFL Board.  They then decided, for their own reasons, to deliberately create another dispute with the SPFL, by beefing up their contract with Park's (perhaps by inserting an exclusivity clause), which would allow them to avoid honouring their cinch obligations.  

 

To my mind, this is more about Rangers dislike of the SPFL Board than the minutiae of any contractual arrangements.

You’re right: TRFC have had a grudge against the SPFL following the decision to award Celtic their pandemic-driven ninth title.

I think “Spellczech” makes an interesting point re UKIO. If we apply the current rules to that situation (and I’m not sure if we can, but let’s go with it) then UKIO’s deal with HMFC would have preceded the League’s deal with Clydesdale and allowed Vlad to kick up a similar fuss. 

But what is TRFC’s angst really all about? After all, TRFC advertising “32Red” didn’t seem to offend their sensibilities when Ladbrokes were SPFL sponsors.

I suspect it’s got a lot to do with the fact that Park’s donations - which have helped keep the lights on at Ibrox as well as fund the means to deny Celtic 10IAR - are vital, and that Park will be supported no matter what.

[Footballfirst]

37 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

You’re right: TRFC have had a grudge against the SPFL following the decision to award Celtic their pandemic-driven ninth title.

I think “Spellczech” makes an interesting point re UKIO. If we apply the current rules to that situation (and I’m not sure if we can, but let’s go with it) then UKIO’s deal with HMFC would have preceded the League’s deal with Clydesdale and allowed Vlad to kick up a similar fuss. 

But what is TRFC’s angst really all about? After all, TRFC advertising “32Red” didn’t seem to offend their sensibilities when Ladbrokes were SPFL sponsors.

I suspect it’s got a lot to do with the fact that Park’s donations - which have helped keep the lights on at Ibrox as well as fund the means to deny Celtic 10IAR - are vital, and that Park will be supported no matter what.

Ukio first sponsored Hearts in season 2005/06. It is unlikely that Ukio could have put an exclusivity clause in the contract, because of the SPL's pre existing contract with BOS.

 

When Clydesdale took over sponsorship of the league in 2007/08, they would just have inherited the same arrangements as BOS. Vlad could only have kicked up a fuss if Ukio had an exclusivity clause for financial services. It is clear that they didn't because of the pre existing BOS contract. 

 

Ladbrokes is just a red herring. I don't believe that the SPL/SPFL would allow any league sponsor to have an exclusivity deal that would prevent clubs from making their own separate sponsorship deals with any business sector. If they did, then Ladbrokes sponsorship could have affected Rangers, Celtic and Hibs etc.  However, government action on limiting advertising by betting companies may be brought in within the next couple of years.

[Spellczech]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

It is exactly how it works.

 

BoS had a contract with the SPL re branding, advertising and sponsorship that all clubs were able to honour (no clubs to my knowledge had a bank sponsor when the contract was entered into). I have no idea if any exclusivity was built into that contract, although I suspect not, as it would prevent clubs from entering into new contracts with financial services companies.

 

Ukio comes along and provides shirt sponsorship and other branding and advertising at Tynecastle. They were unable to remove the BoS branding as part of their contract because of the contractual arrangement already in place with the SPL.

 

Clydesdale then comes along and replaces BoS and is able to replicate their branding, advertising and sponsorship. Ukio/Hearts couldn't object, because their contract could not have had exclusivity written into it because of the prior Bos deal.

 

Move onto the SPFL/Rangers/Parks/cinch dispute.

Parks and Rangers both claim that they have a contract dating back to 2015 (updated in May 2021) which does not permit Rangers to to display branding for another car dealer in the stadium or on their shirts. If that is the case then that contract must have an exclusivity clause written into it.    

 

The SPFL enters into a contract with cinch (after May 2021) that requires all clubs to display its branding in the stadium and on shirts. 

 

Rangers say that they have an existing contractual arrangement that prevents them fulfilling all the obligations of the cinch deal.  That situation is allowed under SPFL rules.

 

Rangers have been asked by the SPFL for evidence of this pre existing contract. To date, Rangers have not done so.  However, both parties have agreed to go down the arbitration route, which is where we are at.

 

My personal take on it is that Rangers must be confident of success to take the matter to arbitration (the loser will pay the, not inconsiderable, costs of all parties).  I suspect that Rangers were aware of early discussions with cinch before the deal was announced as Stewart Robertson is on the SPFL Board.  They then decided, for their own reasons, to deliberately create another dispute with the SPFL, by beefing up their contract with Park's (perhaps by inserting an exclusivity clause), which would allow them to avoid honouring their cinch obligations.  

 

To my mind, this is more about Rangers dislike of the SPFL Board than the minutiae of any contractual arrangements.

I think we all know that the 2015 contract didn't have an exclusivity clause, and that is the reason they did another contract in May... Vlad could've done the same wheeze between the end of the BOS contract and the start of the Clydesdale one. The 2 sponsorships are mutually exclusive and it is highly likely that BOS would end in May 2007 and CB commence in August 2007...

[PortyBeach]

8 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Ukio first sponsored Hearts in season 2005/06. It is unlikely that Ukio could have put an exclusivity clause in the contract, because of the SPL's pre existing contract with BOS.

 

When Clydesdale took over sponsorship of the league in 2007/08, they would just have inherited the same arrangements as BOS. Vlad could only have kicked up a fuss if Ukio had an exclusivity clause for financial services. It is clear that they didn't because of the pre existing BOS contract. 

 

Ladbrokes is just a red herring. I don't believe that the SPL/SPFL would allow any league sponsor to have an exclusivity deal that would prevent clubs from making their own separate sponsorship deals with any business sector. If they did, then Ladbrokes sponsorship could have affected Rangers, Celtic and Hibs etc.  However, government action on limiting advertising by betting companies may be brought in within the next couple of years.

My point re 32Red/Ladbrokes is simply that it represents a precedent whereby the League sponsor was in the same line of business as the sponsor of a member club. 
Except on that occasion, without the controversy and, as you point out, the question here is what lies behind the controversy.

[Nookie Bear]

On 02/11/2021 at 22:30, OTT said:

 

I really, really hope this ruins the SPFL and forces a breakaway league. We need to freshen things up badly and hopefully this is the catalyst for it. Hopefully if the winds change we can try and push for more meaningful change too - specifically around the voting system but perhaps the culture of the organisation too. 

 

Breakaway to where? Who is going to be in this league?

 

The only 'breaking away' we are going to see are the old firm joining a European League (Division 2, North) in the next few years.

[Nookie Bear]

Just don't pay rangers any money originated from cinch 🤷‍♀️

[Largo]

3 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Just don't pay rangers any money originated from cinch 🤷‍♀️

Will cinch want a deal that does not involve tv or strip advertising by the Champions.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Largo said:

Will cinch want a deal that does not involve tv or strip advertising by the Champions.

 

Basically all of their away games are televised, their fans will see Cinch branding plenty.

My guess is Cinch will magnanimously not ask for money back, making them look like the good guys, and aware that their reach won't be damaged by much. I'd love to then see the rangers' share split among the other clubs, but that's another story.

 

But this represents a problem.

If the rangers hadn't submitted a contract, how could the spfl know they didn't have those rights to sell?

[Largo]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Basically all of their away games are televised, their fans will see Cinch branding plenty.

My guess is Cinch will magnanimously not ask for money back, making them look like the good guys, and aware that their reach won't be damaged by much. I'd love to then see the rangers' share split among the other clubs, but that's another story.

 

But this represents a problem.

If the rangers hadn't submitted a contract, how could the spfl know they didn't have those rights to sell?

Honestly I have no idea of who was aware of contracts in place and what agreements were involved, surely Rangers would not be dragging this to court with no evidence to back their case .

IMO this purely Rangers picking wholes in the errors of the SPFL.

[Dolf_lundgren]

cinch will be delighted with this, no-one knew o cared what they did until Sevco told everyone! no publicity is bad publicity. 

 

Are there any rules broken if a director of a business uses confidential info from another directorship to benefit one and negatively impact the other? i.e is Robertson knew about the cinch deal and that impacted on the Parks deal?

 

But surely SPFL should have something signed to bind all of the teams into accepting the sponsor as they do with the TV deal. So a club can sign exclusivity agreements but there should be primacy for the overall league deals.  

 

Sevco not sharing the agreement is just childish. I think they must have a point, but if it is anything like their "dossier" last summer it will be a drawing of a car and no surrender scribbled under it.

[Rogue Daddy]

Flipping to the last page, here is what I think will happen - Sevco will provide their contract, Cinch will spit the dummy and threaten to walk, SPFL ie Dungcaster will, (yet again) offer compo to cinch (paid out of the SPFL kitty like last years pay backs to SKY, BT, BBC) thus saving Dungcaster's teflon ass yet again.

 

FTuglies FTSPFL FTSFA Fdungcatser FTH

Edited November 4, 2021 by Rogue Daddy

[OTT]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Breakaway to where? Who is going to be in this league?

 

The only 'breaking away' we are going to see are the old firm joining a European League (Division 2, North) in the next few years.

Just the same as last time. Changing the structure/ voting system/ people without having to put anything to an impossible vote. 

[Rogue Daddy]

8 minutes ago, OTT said:

Just the same as last time. Changing the structure/ voting system/ people without having to put anything to an impossible vote. 

 

Would love this to happen again... only, this time, to follow it through. Lets see where the uglies REALLY want to play their football - Scotland on a level playing field (doubtful) or elsewhere as a small fish? .... I dream!

[PortyBeach]

2 hours ago, Largo said:

Honestly I have no idea of who was aware of contracts in place and what agreements were involved, surely Rangers would not be dragging this to court with no evidence to back their case .

IMO this purely Rangers picking wholes in the errors of the SPFL.

SPFL rules allow a member club with a contract which pre-dates a League sponsorship deal, and which places certain “obligations” on the club, to opt-out of the League’s deal.

TRFC clearly have a “contract” of sorts with Park they consider meets the requirement of the SPFL rule in question.

 I suppose it’s now up to the SFA to decide if they want to put the matter to the test  via some form of arbitration.

[Rudy T]

5 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Flipping to the last page, here is what I think will happen - Sevco will provide their contract, Cinch will spit the dummy and threaten to walk, SPFL ie Dungcaster will, (yet again) offer compo to cinch (paid out of the SPFL kitty like last years pay backs to SKY, BT, BBC) thus saving Dungcaster's teflon ass yet again.

 

FTuglies FTSPFL FTSFA Fdungcatser FTH

I agree, exactly the way I suspect this will play out.

[Hagar the Horrible]

If Sevco had their own dealership they would only sell red Honda Ulsters. 

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

If Sevco had their own dealership they would only sell red Honda Ulsters. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

It seems bizarre that it has got to this stage. The rule appears to be clear enough and Rangers only need to provide the contract to prove this rule applies. The fact they haven’t suggests the contract is not exclusive and probably not covered by the rule.

It is amateurish that The SPFL could be selling naming rights for our league without knowing what deals are in place that could result in a team not adopting the sponsor on their kit.

 

 

[Lone Striker]

On 03/11/2021 at 22:25, OTT said:

 

Is this just petty boardroom squabbles or do Rangers have an endgame here do you think?

 

Doncaster has always came off as Celtics man. Chummy in the extreme with Lawwell and never seeming to divert from Celtics interests. Wonder if they're looking to try and get the clubs to get rid of him at long last? 

Thats only been the perception since "armageddon" happened though.   He's a slimeball who'll be happy to bend for whichever Bigot Brother happens to be the most powerful/influential  at the time.     I think there is probably some genuine contractual substance to Rangers stance, but they've probably also got Doncaster in their sights too as punishment for being  Lawwell's man. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

It seems bizarre that it has got to this stage. The rule appears to be clear enough and Rangers only need to provide the contract to prove this rule applies. The fact they haven’t suggests the contract is not exclusive and probably not covered by the rule.

It is amateurish that The SPFL could be selling naming rights for our league without knowing what deals are in place that could result in a team not adopting the sponsor on their kit.

 

These contracts are meant to be submitted to the league but they've still not seen this one yet, ridiculous state of affairs

[Diadora Van Basten]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

Thats only been the perception since "armageddon" happened though.   He's a slimeball who'll be happy to bend for whichever Bigot Brother happens to be the most powerful/influential  at the time.     I think there is probably some genuine contractual substance to Rangers stance, but they've probably also got Doncaster in their sights too as punishment for being  Lawwell's man. 

The irony is that Doncaster was the one who came out and stated Rangers were the same team despite the precedents set in the treatment of Airdrie who had to start again as Airdrie United.

[Mr Brightside]

A tactic Rangers could argue if their new contract with Parks is dated after the Cinch deal is state they acted as if the contract had been signed. A contract comes into force when parties start to act in accordance with the contract and this can be before it is signed. All Rangers would need to do is demonstrate that they had Parks branding, discounts for season ticket holder’s etc in place prior to the Cinch deal.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Mr Brightside

[132goals1958]

27 minutes ago, Mr Brightside said:

A tactic Rangers could argue if their new contract with Parks is dated after the Cinch deal is state they acted as if the contract had been signed. A contract comes into force when parties start to act in accordance with the contract and this can be before it is signed. All Rangers would need to do is demonstrate that they had Parks branding, discounts for season ticket holder’s etc in place prior to the Cinch deal.

 

On the flip side there is an aspect of Contract Law covered by The doctrine of Personal bar which effectively prevents a party taking subsequent actions to changing the materiality of a contract to their benefit in the knowledge of a change in circumstances. All a bit complex.Maybe that’s why Sevco are keeping things close to their chest

[Nookie Bear]

11 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Thats only been the perception since "armageddon" happened though.   He's a slimeball who'll be happy to bend for whichever Bigot Brother happens to be the most powerful/influential  at the time.     I think there is probably some genuine contractual substance to Rangers stance, but they've probably also got Doncaster in their sights too as punishment for being  Lawwell's man. 

 

I think this is true. Someone on his salary should be leading the game for the greater good, not being led by two of its members.

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I think this is true. Someone on his salary should be leading the game for the greater good, not being led by two of its members.

But one of the members put him in situ

[Fozzyonthefence]

12 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

The irony is that Doncaster was the one who came out and stated Rangers were the same team despite the precedents set in the treatment of Airdrie who had to start again as Airdrie United.

Airdrie (or Airdrieonians) wasn’t the same scenario.  They were liquidated and Clydebank (who were still a going concern, albeit in administration iirc) moved to Airdrie and changed their name.  Technically it’s Airdrieonians that disappeared and Clydebank carried on, similar to Meadowbank Thistle moving to Livingston and changing their name. 
 

Edit:  The newly formed Airdrie Utd bought out Clydebank and their League 2 place. Airdrieonians had already disappeared.  

Edited November 5, 2021 by Fozzyonthefence

[PortyBeach]

15 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

It seems bizarre that it has got to this stage. The rule appears to be clear enough and Rangers only need to provide the contract to prove this rule applies. The fact they haven’t suggests the contract is not exclusive and probably not covered by the rule.

It is amateurish that The SPFL could be selling naming rights for our league without knowing what deals are in place that could result in a team not adopting the sponsor on their kit.

 

 

I found an article in the Glasgow Evening Times saying Lord Keen (SPFL legal team) had received a heavily redacted document from May 2021 purporting to show a business relationship between TRFC and Park’s of Hamilton.

The redacted text is apparently to protect

“commercial sensitivities”. 

Apparently, they have asked for a “clean” copy to be sent to “his lordship” so that the full terms of the contents can be properly examined.
I don’t know what has happened subsequently, but surely this request will have to be met in order to resolve this matter?

Interestingly, bearing in mind the May date of the alleged contract, Lord Keen stated that “the fact is that up to 7th June, TRFC was negotiating with Cinch…” (this referred to a stadium naming-rights deal).

It’s not hard to imagine that had such a lucrative deal gone through, there wouldn’t be this fuss.

TRFC have denied “negotiations” with Cinch took place of course. How likely is it Lord Keen would jeopardise his legal career and reputation by spreading falsehoods though?

On 3 November, the same paper reported that “Rangers have not provided the SPFL Board with sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would represent a conflict of commercial interests”…

[Mikey1874]

19 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

I found an article in the Glasgow Evening Times saying Lord Keen (SPFL legal team) had received a heavily redacted document from May 2021 purporting to show a business relationship between TRFC and Park’s of Hamilton.

The redacted text is apparently to protect

“commercial sensitivities”. 

Apparently, they have asked for a “clean” copy to be sent to “his lordship” so that the full terms of the contents can be properly examined.
I don’t know what has happened subsequently, but surely this request will have to be met in order to resolve this matter?

Interestingly, bearing in mind the May date of the alleged contract, Lord Keen stated that “the fact is that up to 7th June, TRFC was negotiating with Cinch…” (this referred to a stadium naming-rights deal).

It’s not hard to imagine that had such a lucrative deal gone through, there wouldn’t be this fuss.

TRFC have denied “negotiations” with Cinch took place of course. How likely is it Lord Keen would jeopardise his legal career and reputation by spreading falsehoods though?

On 3 November, the same paper reported that “Rangers have not provided the SPFL Board with sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would represent a conflict of commercial interests”…

 

The court case has concluded. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7943172/rangers-douglas-park-cinch-court-judge-impossible-decision/amp/