Rangers arbitration vs SPFL over Cinch deal

[PortyBeach]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

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/

I may be wrong, but is that not the case where Park’s claim to entitlement to participate in any arbitration as an interested party was upheld?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

49 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

I may be wrong, but is that not the case where Park’s claim to entitlement to participate in any arbitration as an interested party was upheld?

 

More specifically that is the failed appeal by the SFA against the interdict granted to Parks of Hamilton preventing the SFA arbitration moving forward without their involvement. 

 

Why the SFA/SPFL are so keen to exclude Parks from the process who knows. But if you asked me to guess their inability to effectively control Parks from revealing parts of the proceedings that may cause embarrassment to various office holders is a big part of it.

 

So if the SFA panel is to proceed Parks needs to be part of it. Expect the process to be moved into the long grass.

[PortyBeach]

9 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

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.  

Airdrie’s situation was the same in that that club - like RFC - was wound-up.
Airdrie’s owners subsequent purchase of Clydebank and change of that club’s name to Airdrie United was tragic for Clydebank and their fans but perfectly legal.

The difference was/is that it’s acknowledged the original Airdrie FC are no more, whereas Doncaster and others -including a compliant media - have peddled the myth that the football club currently playing out of Ibrox was NOT formed in 2012.

[HMFC01]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-spfl-cinch-row-reignited-25802122

 

Rangers and SPFL cinch row reignited as league body to be investigated by the SFA

Park's of Hamilton claim the SPFL attempted to block their participation in talks over the cinch sponsorship deal.

 

The SFA are set to investigate claims the SPFL breached policy during their feud with Rangers over the cinch sponsorship deal.

Car dealer cinch penned a record deal to become the SPFL 's name sponsor in the summer but champions Rangers resisted pressure to advertise the brand at Ibrox.

 

 

Ibrox chairman Douglas Park runs Park's of Hamilton, a rival company, and Rangers argued the cinch deal would breach their pre-existing agreement with them.

 

The row has been rumbling in the background since it raged earlier in the season and now, as reported by The Herald, Park's have taken the matter to the SFA

 

Compliance officer Andrew Phillips will investigate claims the SPFL attempted to block their participation in arbitration proceedings involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch in the Court of Session.

 

A statement from Park's of Hamilton reads: “We can confirm discussions between the legal representatives of Park’s of Hamilton and the SFA have been referred to the Compliance Officer, in line with Article 94, by the SFA's legal advisers.

 

“We continue to believe that the SPFL's recent attempts in the Court of Session to block our participation in the ongoing arbitration proceedings breach the Scottish FA's Article 99.12.

 

“In addition to this, we believe that the SPFL have failed to behave with the utmost good faith in this matter and did not take every possible step to resolve the dispute prior to referring the matter to arbitration - as they are required to do in terms of article 99.14.

 

“Whilst we are not members of the SPFL or the SFA, we were forced to commence court proceedings to protect our commercial position due to the conduct of the SPFL.

 

“It is imperative that the SFA, as the governing body, applies all Articles to members in order to protect the integrity of its disciplinary processes.

 

“The SPFL continue to engage in behaviour which we believe seeks to induce a breach of a contract to which we are a party. We are prepared to pursue a claim against the SPFL regarding this ongoing conduct.”

 

[Restonbabe]

I cannot see any way out od this for Doncaster. Surely the final nail in the coffin for that man 

[jdl2002]

42 minutes ago, Restonbabe said:

I cannot see any way out od this for Doncaster. Surely the final nail in the coffin for that man 

I certainly hope so, along with their legal advisor too, forget his name but he looks like a weasel. 

[TyphoonJambo]

I bet they agree to go their separate ways with him getting a bug pay offf,instead if just sacking the useless twat.

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, Restonbabe said:

I cannot see any way out od this for Doncaster. Surely the final nail in the coffin for that man 

 

You would hope so but he always seems to wriggle out of these complete ****-ups.

[Boris]

Seems strange that Parks of Hamilton quote SFA articles, then go on to say that they (PoH) are neither members of the SFA or spfl. How can those articles apply to PoH then?

 

If TRFC had made this statement, then maybe it would make more sense?

[Fozzyonthefence]

58 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You would hope so but he always seems to wriggle out of these complete ****-ups.

Yep, seems a bit like Boris in that respect! 

[Fozzyonthefence]

On 05/11/2021 at 22:47, PortyBeach said:

Airdrie’s situation was the same in that that club - like RFC - was wound-up.
Airdrie’s owners subsequent purchase of Clydebank and change of that club’s name to Airdrie United was tragic for Clydebank and their fans but perfectly legal.

The difference was/is that it’s acknowledged the original Airdrie FC are no more, whereas Doncaster and others -including a compliant media - have peddled the myth that the football club currently playing out of Ibrox was NOT formed in 2012.

It’s not really the same though.  Yes, as you say, Airdrieonians are no more, however, Clydebank technically did continue albeit via a takeover, change of name and change of town and ground!  
 

With Rangers, there was no existing club carrying on, just a new one formed.  For anyone saying they are not a new club, answer this - why (if you think it is the same club) did they have to apply for a temporary membership of the SFA to participate in their first ever game (a diddy cup game at Brechin iirc)?  If they were the same club they would already be a member of the SFA and that would have been unnecessary surely?!

[Fozzyonthefence]

9 hours ago, HMFC01 said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-spfl-cinch-row-reignited-25802122

 

Rangers and SPFL cinch row reignited as league body to be investigated by the SFA

Park's of Hamilton claim the SPFL attempted to block their participation in talks over the cinch sponsorship deal.

 

The SFA are set to investigate claims the SPFL breached policy during their feud with Rangers over the cinch sponsorship deal.

Car dealer cinch penned a record deal to become the SPFL 's name sponsor in the summer but champions Rangers resisted pressure to advertise the brand at Ibrox.

 

 

Ibrox chairman Douglas Park runs Park's of Hamilton, a rival company, and Rangers argued the cinch deal would breach their pre-existing agreement with them.

 

The row has been rumbling in the background since it raged earlier in the season and now, as reported by The Herald, Park's have taken the matter to the SFA

 

Compliance officer Andrew Phillips will investigate claims the SPFL attempted to block their participation in arbitration proceedings involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch in the Court of Session.

 

A statement from Park's of Hamilton reads: “We can confirm discussions between the legal representatives of Park’s of Hamilton and the SFA have been referred to the Compliance Officer, in line with Article 94, by the SFA's legal advisers.

 

“We continue to believe that the SPFL's recent attempts in the Court of Session to block our participation in the ongoing arbitration proceedings breach the Scottish FA's Article 99.12.

 

“In addition to this, we believe that the SPFL have failed to behave with the utmost good faith in this matter and did not take every possible step to resolve the dispute prior to referring the matter to arbitration - as they are required to do in terms of article 99.14.

 

“Whilst we are not members of the SPFL or the SFA, we were forced to commence court proceedings to protect our commercial position due to the conduct of the SPFL.

 

“It is imperative that the SFA, as the governing body, applies all Articles to members in order to protect the integrity of its disciplinary processes.

 

“The SPFL continue to engage in behaviour which we believe seeks to induce a breach of a contract to which we are a party. We are prepared to pursue a claim against the SPFL regarding this ongoing conduct.”

 

So the SFA are going to investigate the SPFL?  I’m sure everyone will have faith that will be done in an independent, competent and professional manner!

[Japan Jambo]

3 hours ago, Restonbabe said:

I cannot see any way out od this for Doncaster. Surely the final nail in the coffin for that man 

 

I suspect that if there was a nuclear war only the cockroaches and Doncaster would survive...

[davemclaren]

31 minutes ago, Boris said:

Seems strange that Parks of Hamilton quote SFA articles, then go on to say that they (PoH) are neither members of the SFA or spfl. How can those articles apply to PoH then?

 

If TRFC had made this statement, then maybe it would make more sense?

I think they are saying that they apply to the SPFL and the SPFL haven’t followed them. 

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think they are saying that they apply to the SPFL and the SPFL haven’t followed them. 

Ah, ok. But then how would they know?

This is, imo, a Rangers dig at the spfl, via their PoH proxy.

[davemclaren]

Just now, Boris said:

Ah, ok. But then how would they know?

This is, imo, a Rangers dig at the spfl, via their PoH proxy.

Undoubtedly. 

[Rogue Daddy]

14 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So the SFA are going to investigate the SPFL?  I’m sure everyone will have faith that will be done in an independent, competent and professional manner!

 

 SFA investigating SPFL 🤣🤣🤣 

I'll bet that Dungcaster (SFA hat on) will be giving Dungcaster (SPFL hat on) an thorough going over! 

 

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

 

 SFA investigating SPFL 🤣🤣🤣 

I'll bet that Dungcaster (SFA hat on) will be giving Dungcaster (SPFL hat on) an thorough going over! 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So the SFA are going to investigate the SPFL?  I’m sure everyone will have faith that will be done in an independent, competent and professional manner!

 

Absolutely. Everything above board, all this mutual back-scratching .   Doncaster must be a contortionist !! 

 

 

[Churchill Barrier]

2 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

 

 

Absolutely. Everything above board, all this mutual back-scratching .   Doncaster must be a contortionist !! 

 

 

Its like asking rolf harris to review gary glitters internet history for any breaches.

[HMFC01]

27 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So the SFA are going to investigate the SPFL?  I’m sure everyone will have faith that will be done in an independent, competent and professional manner!

 

It's an interesting call.   Compliance officer apparently a Rangers fan.   Could be the biggest job he's had so far.   If he does find something amiss he will have to acknowledge it.   Unless he makes it up 🙄

[tightrope]

27 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

It's an interesting call.   Compliance officer apparently a Rangers fan.   Could be the biggest job he's had so far.   If he does find something amiss he will have to acknowledge it.   Unless he makes it up 🙄

Only in Scotland, compliance officer a Rangers fan! Why could a neutral not be employed in this position. FFS even a foreign Ref, all evidence could be sent online and probably returned quicker than they make decisions now. Fairness and integrity. Aye ok then.

[buzzbomb1958]

11 hours ago, HMFC01 said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-spfl-cinch-row-reignited-25802122

 

Rangers and SPFL cinch row reignited as league body to be investigated by the SFA

Park's of Hamilton claim the SPFL attempted to block their participation in talks over the cinch sponsorship deal.

 

The SFA are set to investigate claims the SPFL breached policy during their feud with Rangers over the cinch sponsorship deal.

Car dealer cinch penned a record deal to become the SPFL 's name sponsor in the summer but champions Rangers resisted pressure to advertise the brand at Ibrox.

 

 

Ibrox chairman Douglas Park runs Park's of Hamilton, a rival company, and Rangers argued the cinch deal would breach their pre-existing agreement with them.

 

The row has been rumbling in the background since it raged earlier in the season and now, as reported by The Herald, Park's have taken the matter to the SFA

 

Compliance officer Andrew Phillips will investigate claims the SPFL attempted to block their participation in arbitration proceedings involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch in the Court of Session.

 

A statement from Park's of Hamilton reads: “We can confirm discussions between the legal representatives of Park’s of Hamilton and the SFA have been referred to the Compliance Officer, in line with Article 94, by the SFA's legal advisers.

 

“We continue to believe that the SPFL's recent attempts in the Court of Session to block our participation in the ongoing arbitration proceedings breach the Scottish FA's Article 99.12.

 

“In addition to this, we believe that the SPFL have failed to behave with the utmost good faith in this matter and did not take every possible step to resolve the dispute prior to referring the matter to arbitration - as they are required to do in terms of article 99.14.

 

“Whilst we are not members of the SPFL or the SFA, we were forced to commence court proceedings to protect our commercial position due to the conduct of the SPFL.

 

“It is imperative that the SFA, as the governing body, applies all Articles to members in order to protect the integrity of its disciplinary processes.

 

“The SPFL continue to engage in behaviour which we believe seeks to induce a breach of a contract to which we are a party. We are prepared to pursue a claim against the SPFL regarding this ongoing conduct.”

 

Maybe Sevco are so pissed at maybe having to stump up millions to Ashley for their shirt deals regarding Hummel and the Castore mob another nail in the coffin hopefully 

[Rudy T]

I still can’t see what the carry on is here, do Rangers have a deal with Parks and did they show the SPFL the paperwork. Yes/No case closed, someone’s lied and pays the price.

[SUTOL]

10 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

I still can’t see what the carry on is here, do Rangers have a deal with Parks and did they show the SPFL the paperwork. Yes/No case closed, someone’s lied and pays the price.

 

I suppose if Rangers do have a deal it will depend if that deal conflicts with any deal the League has and the court proceedings are to decide whose deal is enforceable. 

[Rudy T]

13 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I suppose if Rangers do have a deal it will depend if that deal conflicts with any deal the League has and the court proceedings are to decide whose deal is enforceable. 

I thought that was why this has dragged on, Rangers claim they do and they showed the SPFL the contract, the SPFL claim that didn’t happen. So for me it really shouldn’t be that hard to prove either way. Fwiw I actually think Rangers are telling the truth here for once, and the truth twisters at Hampden are desperately trying to squirm out of this.

[jambodan1998]

Just don’t give Rangers any Cinch money. 

[PortyBeach]

5 hours ago, Boris said:

Ah, ok. But then how would they know?

This is, imo, a Rangers dig at the spfl, via their PoH proxy.

Park’s has already been granted leave to participate in the SFA’s touted arbitration hearing so this just seems like a bit of belated “afters” from them.

It should have no bearing whatsoever on the arbitration issue which is I assume whether the recently materialised, creased, coffee-cup stained piece of paper that TRFC claims to exist does in fact constitute a legal agreement between TRFC and PoH. 
An agreement which, if accepted as kosher, will allow TRFC (and therefore one of their principal benefactors) to opt-out of the Cinch deal.

So what? Cut TRFC out of the Cinch sponsorship monies and divide it between the other clubs.

[PortyBeach]

4 hours ago, buzzbomb1958 said:

Maybe Sevco are so pissed at maybe having to stump up millions to Ashley for their shirt deals regarding Hummel and the Castore mob another nail in the coffin hopefully 

Interesting point! This action is pointless as far as I can see, so as you suggest is there an attempt to divert attention from news of the looming shitstorm on the horizon courtesy of Mike Ashley?

Picking an artificial fight with an old “enemy” to rally (and distract) supporters is a well-worn tactic.

[PortyBeach]

4 hours ago, tightrope said:

Only in Scotland, compliance officer a Rangers fan! Why could a neutral not be employed in this position. FFS even a foreign Ref, all evidence could be sent online and probably returned quicker than they make decisions now. Fairness and integrity. Aye ok then.

An SFA official supports TRFC!! Who’d have thunk it?

”Fairness and integrity” indeed 😳

[IveSeenTheLight]

6 hours ago, tightrope said:

Only in Scotland, compliance officer a Rangers fan! Why could a neutral not be employed in this position. FFS even a foreign Ref, all evidence could be sent online and probably returned quicker than they make decisions now. Fairness and integrity. Aye ok then.

Was it not a Celtic fan a few years ago.

Obviously taking it in turns

[Rudy T]

26 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Was it not a Celtic fan a few years ago.

Obviously taking it in turns

maybe, It’s the new rule, win the league and you get to appoint the compliance officer. Let’s be honest it wouldn’t surprise anyone.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

My reading is that Park/Rangers are looking to tie the SPFL/SFA in as many procedural enquiries as possible to tie them up until they offer to settle. Of course the only acceptable settlement will be the heads of Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on a platter.

 

I’m fully in support of their plan.

[Footballfirst]

Looks like Rangers has won their battle with the SPFL, at a cost to the SPFL clubs of additional "SPFL Media Assets", whatever that means.

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/20212973.rangers-excused-new-premiership-cinch-deal-neil-doncaster-insists-spfl-clubs-will-not-impacted/

 

RANGERS have been excused from a new SPFL sponsorship deal with cinch following their refusal to showcase the used car company’s branding last season.

The Ibrox club were adamant they did not have to promote the sponsor’s advertising due to a contractual conflict of interest with chairman Douglas Park's own company, Park's Motor Group.

Over the course of last season, Rangers did not use cinch branding during their home matches or during interviews post-match on television.

The SPFL have now confirmed that they have extended their deal with cinch for the new season, but Rangers are no longer contractually obliged to participate.

Neil Doncaster, chief executive of the SPFL, said: “Under the terms of the revised cinch contract, Rangers are no longer required to participate by providing the sponsorship inventory that they have so far not provided, whilst, crucially, the overall income to Scottish football is expected to remain materially unchanged over the original five-year term of the sponsorship.

“This revised package has now been approved by cinch Premiership Clubs.

“It’s extremely good news that we have been able to work with our partners at cinch to develop an updated sponsorship package which delivers the same level of financial support to Scottish football, whilst providing additional SPFL media assets to cinch to compensate for loss of Rangers related rights.

“It is testament to the strength of our relationship with cinch, and the high value they place on it, that they have agreed to move forward with us on this basis.

“This deal gives us further confidence that we will exceed our budget and deliver fees to Clubs of more than £27.5 million for Season 2021/22.”

Murdoch MacLennan, chairman of the SPFL, added: “This is a great outcome for the entire game in Scotland. Our friends at cinch have been brilliant to deal with throughout this whole process.

“There is so much to celebrate in the SPFL as cinch and our clubs look forward with excitement to the launch of the 2022/23 fixture list this Friday.”

[The Treasurer]

I take it sevco will not be accepting any prize money from the cinch premier league then 

[Saint Jambo]

13 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

I take it sevco will not be accepting any prize money from the cinch premier league then 

 

Given there is no mention of that and puts Rangers at a (further) advantage to other teams in the league. Not having to provide the sponsorship space to Cinch, leaves Rangers free to sell that space to other sponsors.

 

At the very least, Rangers should be audited for their additional income as a result of the extra sponsorship they are able to sell on the back of this decision. That amount should then be deducted from the revenue they receive from the cinch deal. It can't be right that a club can opt out of the cost of providing sponsorship while fully benefitting from the revenue that it generates. Hearts and every other club are now effectively subsidising Rangers.

[John Findlay]

17 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

I take it sevco will not be accepting any prize money from the cinch premier league then 

2nd place prize money should be divided up equally to the other eleven teams in last season's SPL.

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

2nd place prize money should be divided up equally to the other eleven teams in last season's SPL.

The majority of the prize money comes from the SPFL's deal with Sky Sports, not cinch.

[Zico]

Doncaster continues to outdo himself. What a ****ing trumpet. 

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The majority of the prize money comes from the SPFL's deal with Sky Sports, not cinch.

Fair enough, but whatever monies that Cinch give the SPFL, then it's only fair the inhabitants of Ibrox see none of it.

[Mikey1874]

On 21/10/2021 at 13:46, gjcc said:

Cinch will be loving this. Exponentially more publicity than they would have got if the Rangers just went along with the branding.  

 

What has happened 

[Mikey1874]

On 02/11/2021 at 19:52, 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. 

 

On 02/11/2021 at 19:56, 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.

 

We probably won't find out the exact reasons. 

 

Any losses should be published. Maybe a helpful club chairman will provide more details.. 

[Mikey1874]

31 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The majority of the prize money comes from the SPFL's deal with Sky Sports, not cinch.

 

Cinch is £8 million over 5 years. 

 

Sky Sports is £125 million over 5 years. This includes the repayment for the Covid season. 

[JamboGraham]

If not for the "Rangers saga" I probably still wouldn't know who cinch are and what they do.

 

They have got more press and publicity out of this debacle than they could ever have dreamed from the original agreement.

[the general]

2 hours ago, jonesy said:

No matter the ‘victors’, this episode further underlines both the SPFL’s incompetence and the OF’s disdain for everyone bar themselves.

 

Tinpot at best.

 

Wonder how much the court case cost

[escobri]

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-negotiates-new-cinch-deal

Talking it up like a victory,how is Doncaster still in his position? 

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

If not for the "Rangers saga" I probably still wouldn't know who cinch are and what they do.

 

They have got more press and publicity out of this debacle than they could ever have dreamed from the original agreement.

I think that their higher profile has more to do with sponsorship of the England cricket team than TRFC.

 

 

[FWJ]

They (and their green-and-white pretendy enemies) can do what they want.

They can pretend they weren’t liquidated, they can ‘buy’ their history, they can pretend they were ‘relegated’ to the third division, not that the rules were rubbished just to get the new club back in.

All  of Scottish football rotates around those two, it’s all played to their tune.

 

Everyone else is just ballast.

[OTT]

Neil Doncaster must go. 
 

The guy is an absolute huddy of an executive. Trying to succeed with him at the helm is like trying to keep a clean sheet with Poppadom Hands in goals. The guy has zero vision, zero ideas, can’t sell our game and needs his hand held to struggle through negotiations. I think in the Cinch deal a consultancy firm brought the deal to him, literally dropped it in his lap in exchange for a significant amount of the deal. 
 

He MUST go for Scottish football to ever get off it’s knees. How he cannot find a good deal for our passionate game whilst ****ing Sweden, Poland, Norway, Denmark get deals that piss all over the pennies he gets is laughable. 
 

He’s been in charge for 10+ years and the game hasn’t prospered in any sort of metric. He’s a piece of shit that has leeched a wage from our game whilst contributing nothing. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by OTT

[RobNox]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

Neil Doncaster must go. 
 

The guy is an absolute huddy of an executive. Trying to succeed with him at the helm is like trying to keep a clean sheet with Poppadom Hands in goals. The guy has zero vision, zero ideas, can’t sell our game and needs his hand held to struggle through negotiations. I think in the Cinch deal a consultancy firm brought the deal to him, literally dropped it in his lap in exchange for a significant amount of the deal. 
 

He MUST go for Scottish football to ever get off it’s knees. How he cannot find a good deal for our passionate game whilst ****ing Sweden, Poland, Norway, Denmark get deals that piss all over the pennies he gets is laughable. 
 

He’s been in charge for 10+ years and the game hasn’t prospered in any sort of metric. He’s a piece of shit that has leeched a wage from our game whilst contributing nothing. 

Spot on!  He's the Chief Executive of the SPFL on a basic salary of £400k excluding bonuses.  I'd expect someone in that position to be showing real leadership, communicating his vision for Scottish football and driving forward with innovative ideas on how to improve things and coming up with creative solutions to any problems that emerge.

 

Instead, he hires a consultancy firm to find a new sponsor, who take their cut while he still gets his big bonus for finding a new sponsor.  He heralds it as the biggest sponsorship deal in SPFL history, neglecting to point out that it's a 5 year deal and is actually worth less than previous sponsors Ladbrokes paid during their 5 years of sponsorship which consisted of 3 separate sponsorship deals.  

 

Whenever a problem arises, like the pandemic, he reverts to his rhetoric that he only acts on behalf of the clubs.  So instead of making a decision or attempting to come up with a creative solution, he just puts it to a vote.  Whatever the outcome, he can't be held accountable as it was the clubs' decision, not his.

 

I'd love to have a job where I was paid £400k for sitting on my arse, whenever a difficult decision had to be made I got my employees to vote on it so if it turns out to be a poor decision it's not my fault, and on a fat bonus for achieving certain objectives where I can then hire external parties to achieve those things at the company's cost, not mine, but still pocket the bonus.

[colinmaroon]

 

He could teach Boris a thing or two.  Even the backbench 1690 Committee are powerless.