Jump to content

Rangers arbitration vs SPFL over Cinch deal


Restonbabe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • PortyBeach

    15

  • Footballfirst

    14

  • sadj

    8

  • Rogue Daddy

    8

colinmaroon
2 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

Doncaster is more bullet proof than Boris. 

 

 

 

Boris uses populism to blind people to his many, many transparent failings.

 

Doncaster uses the Politburo method.  His workings are as transparent as mud.

 

The results of both are leading to catastrophe.  As you have suggested, bookies have stopped taking bets on Boris as to who goes first. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glamorgan Jambo

I wondered where all the silly stories about Cinch having greater brand recognition as a result of this dispute came from. Now we know it’s part of a PR campaign to admonish Doncaster for this complete mess.

 

Reading between the lines they have maintained the cash value of the sponsorship by giving additional exposure to Cinch at the clubs than was initially intended. Something that clubs like Hearts may have been able to sell themselves.

 

Lets hope absolutely no one is taken in by the PR puff and Doncaster is sent back to Norwich. And McLennan dispatched too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Douglas Park scathing of the SPFL following yesterday's announcement.

 

https://news.stv.tv/sport/rangers-chairmans-company-accuses-spfl-of-bullying-and-demands-investigation-after-cinch-sponsorship-clash

 

A company owned by Rangers chairman Douglas Park has accused the SPFL of trying to bully the Premiership club in a row over a sponsorship deal.

 

The league body announced on Wednesday that it had renegotiated the title sponsorship deal with online car dealership cinch after Rangers had refused to display the company’s branding on their shirts and in the stadium throughout last season.

 

The Ibrox club said that the deal was in conflict with their own relationship with Park’s of Hamilton Motor Group, and that they were acting within the rules in refusing to advertise cinch.

 

The dispute was taken to an arbitration process facilitated by the Scottish FA, and went to court, with Rangers winning a ruling in their favour.

 

After the SPFL revealed that their new deal with cinch allowed them to keep the value of the original deal with cinch, but excluded any requirement for Rangers to participate, Park’s of Hamilton accused the organisation of behaving improperly throughout the dispute, and alleged bullying.

Park’s has now called for an independent investigation into the handling of the matter. They also alleged that Rangers had been insulted and other, included cinch and the SFA, had been misled over the last year.

 

A spokesman said: “We were not surprised to learn from the media announcement last night that the SPFL have finally acknowledged Rangers legitimately engaged rule i7 in June of last year and thus, vindicated the stance held by the club for over a year.

“It is not for us to speculate as to why the SPFL leadership sought to ignore their own rules for so long.

 

“The fact that the SPFL prevaricated and continued to stall an arbitration process they themselves initiated in August last year, and which was ruled upon by the court of appeal in October, underlined the weakness of the case they truly had. Were it not for our interim interdict, it is clear their strategy was to try and bully one of their members and shareholders; a strategy which they have employed on numerous occasions.

 

“Throughout the last year, Park’s have kept their counsel as the SPFL leadership insulted us and misled the SFA, their member clubs, their title sponsor, and various other stakeholders in Scottish football.”

 

Park’s called for action to investigate why the SPFL acted in a way they believe “brought the game into disrepute” and said that the expenses involved in the dispute would cost member clubs. They also said that an apology was needed to all affected by the decision.

 

“We have a long standing and proud association with Scottish football, and it was entirely wrong that we were compelled to take the SFA to court because the SPFL decided to abuse the SFA’s arbitration process. We believe that the SPFL and members of its leadership have brought the game in to disrepute and have failed, as have the SPFL as an organisation, to act with the utmost good faith towards their members.

 

“The SFA must carry out an independent investigation into this issue which has cost all parties involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. Despite being awarded expenses in court, Park’s will not recover all their legal fees nor be compensated for the reputational damage caused by the SPFL.

 

“Finally, the glaring omission from the SPFL’s statement was an apology. The SPFL leadership owe their members an apology, they owe Park’s an apology, they owe the SFA an apology and they also owe an apology to Rangers. Unfortunately, they seem to lack any accountability and would rather spend their members money than admit their failures.”

 

The SPFL has been contacted for comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Douglas Park scathing of the SPFL following yesterday's announcement.

 

https://news.stv.tv/sport/rangers-chairmans-company-accuses-spfl-of-bullying-and-demands-investigation-after-cinch-sponsorship-clash

 

A company owned by Rangers chairman Douglas Park has accused the SPFL of trying to bully the Premiership club in a row over a sponsorship deal.

 

The league body announced on Wednesday that it had renegotiated the title sponsorship deal with online car dealership cinch after Rangers had refused to display the company’s branding on their shirts and in the stadium throughout last season.

 

The Ibrox club said that the deal was in conflict with their own relationship with Park’s of Hamilton Motor Group, and that they were acting within the rules in refusing to advertise cinch.

 

The dispute was taken to an arbitration process facilitated by the Scottish FA, and went to court, with Rangers winning a ruling in their favour.

 

After the SPFL revealed that their new deal with cinch allowed them to keep the value of the original deal with cinch, but excluded any requirement for Rangers to participate, Park’s of Hamilton accused the organisation of behaving improperly throughout the dispute, and alleged bullying.

Park’s has now called for an independent investigation into the handling of the matter. They also alleged that Rangers had been insulted and other, included cinch and the SFA, had been misled over the last year.

 

A spokesman said: “We were not surprised to learn from the media announcement last night that the SPFL have finally acknowledged Rangers legitimately engaged rule i7 in June of last year and thus, vindicated the stance held by the club for over a year.

“It is not for us to speculate as to why the SPFL leadership sought to ignore their own rules for so long.

 

“The fact that the SPFL prevaricated and continued to stall an arbitration process they themselves initiated in August last year, and which was ruled upon by the court of appeal in October, underlined the weakness of the case they truly had. Were it not for our interim interdict, it is clear their strategy was to try and bully one of their members and shareholders; a strategy which they have employed on numerous occasions.

 

“Throughout the last year, Park’s have kept their counsel as the SPFL leadership insulted us and misled the SFA, their member clubs, their title sponsor, and various other stakeholders in Scottish football.”

 

Park’s called for action to investigate why the SPFL acted in a way they believe “brought the game into disrepute” and said that the expenses involved in the dispute would cost member clubs. They also said that an apology was needed to all affected by the decision.

 

“We have a long standing and proud association with Scottish football, and it was entirely wrong that we were compelled to take the SFA to court because the SPFL decided to abuse the SFA’s arbitration process. We believe that the SPFL and members of its leadership have brought the game in to disrepute and have failed, as have the SPFL as an organisation, to act with the utmost good faith towards their members.

 

“The SFA must carry out an independent investigation into this issue which has cost all parties involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. Despite being awarded expenses in court, Park’s will not recover all their legal fees nor be compensated for the reputational damage caused by the SPFL.

 

“Finally, the glaring omission from the SPFL’s statement was an apology. The SPFL leadership owe their members an apology, they owe Park’s an apology, they owe the SFA an apology and they also owe an apology to Rangers. Unfortunately, they seem to lack any accountability and would rather spend their members money than admit their failures.”

 

The SPFL has been contacted for comment.

 

How do you apologise to a club that does not exist anymore. 

 

:qqb006:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

buzzbomb1958
3 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

How do you apologise to a club that does not exist anymore. 

 

:qqb006:

Sorry Plastic fc😎😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers are out to get the SPFL over previous treatment including the Covid period.

 

But I do think they have got a point. The conduct of the court action was bullying. 

Edited by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

Doncaster is more bullet proof than Boris. 

 

 

 

Actually can't put into words how much I hate the guy. 

 

His total lack of ambition for Scottish football is contemptuous. He displays no interest or passion for developing our game. The guy has been clocking in and clocking out whilst contributing less than the bare minimum. Seems keen to tie us up to long term shite deals so he doesn't need to actually go out there and sell our game to TV companies or league sponsors. 

 

If he forgot to breathe tomorrow Scottish football would be infinitely better off. A piece of shit with zero redeeming qualities. 

 

£400k PA for what? Seriously. Consultants to go out and get the deals for him, meanwhile he's doing what exactly? 

 

A leech of the highest order and his continued employment is a slap in the face to fans up and down this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

The SPFL has now responded to Park's statement.

 

A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events. 

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout. 

 

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

 

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs.  We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RobNox said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stotty said:
17 hours ago, RobNox said:

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.

Expand  

Totally agree with this, put a lot more eloquently than I could though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not understanding the issue. Rangers have a sponsor/director who operate a similar business to Cinch....

 

That happens all the time. Imagine we kicked up a fuss about the Tennents Scottish Cup as we were sponsored by Strongbow?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something really obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Daveandal said:

I'm really not understanding the issue. Rangers have a sponsor/director who operate a similar business to Cinch....

 

That happens all the time. Imagine we kicked up a fuss about the Tennents Scottish Cup as we were sponsored by Strongbow?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something really obvious.

 

 

20220616_205749.jpg

20220616_205845.jpg

Edited by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d like to hear why the member clubs keep him in a job. If they don’t like him then they can get rid, but Rangers aside I don’t see a clamour to get him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rudy T said:

I’d like to hear why the member clubs keep him in a job. If they don’t like him then they can get rid, but Rangers aside I don’t see a clamour to get him out.

 

General consensus in the lower divisions is that it would cost too much in legal fees which the clubs don't want to, or in many cases can't afford to, pay.  So, essentially, he's meticulously and successfully managed to make himself bulletproof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible
11 hours ago, Rudy T said:

I’d like to hear why the member clubs keep him in a job. If they don’t like him then they can get rid, but Rangers aside I don’t see a clamour to get him out.

The guy is a bigger screw up than John Swinney but he keeps getting re-elected. But to answer your question he is Celtics yes man, he is seen as quote "a very able man"  the majority of clubs are subservant to Celtic, who still have the CONCH.

 

Doncaster has succesfully promoted sponsers that have been factually a worse deal than ones 20 years earlier

 

BOS, Clydesdale, Ladbrokes etc, you do some ressearch which I might do later cinch itsh shfriday  "sorry"

 

But this cinch deal which has been spun by Murdo MacLennan as a successful revision, which allows one member NOT to use its branding but they will still get any pro-rata payments from it.

 

Its still a deal for the whole of Scottish football which values our product as less than half of Tottenhams sleeve, but just a wee bit better than Crystal Palace, and about the same as Nothampton Saints RFU.  But no where near the LTA (Wimbledon Fortnight)......

 

Doncaster and MacLennon faced a vote of no confidence and demands for a full enquiry,  3 or 4 clubs putting a proposal is enough, and 1/3rd is more than enough but after Liewell rousing speach 2/3rd backed down to Celtic.

 

Rangers are the victors in this skirmish, they get the benefits from the deal but dont have to abide by the deal and a free to use that space for their own deals.

 

Sevco want the Conch but have never regained they status as they have rebranded as a Rangers.  They still dont hold that power that the former club once had, they want the Conch but are still the pigs head.  Doncaster is basically Roger.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/06/2022 at 20:44, Daveandal said:

I'm really not understanding the issue. Rangers have a sponsor/director who operate a similar business to Cinch....

 

That happens all the time. Imagine we kicked up a fuss about the Tennents Scottish Cup as we were sponsored by Strongbow?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something really obvious.

Park has contributed significant “soft loans”  to TRFC in the bid to deny Celtic the “Ten”. My guess is he felt he’d already done enough and that the potential financial hit his business might have taken from advertising Cinch at Ibrox and on club jerseys, was a step too far.

But do I think Park and TRFC had a formal, commercial agreement that pre-dated the Cinch deal which would have allowed TRFC to be exempt from the Cinch deal? Nah!

Edited by PortyBeach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PortyBeach said:

Park has contributed significant “soft loans”  to TRFC in the bid to deny Celtic the “Ten”. My guess is he felt he’d already done enough and that the potential financial hit his business might have taken from advertising Cinch at Ibrox and on club jerseys, was a step too far.

But do I think Park and TRFC had a formal, commercial agreement that pre-dated the Cinch deal which would have allowed TRFC to be exempt from the Cinch deal? Nah!

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

I can see their point. I can see how Doncaster hasn't done his homework. I still think Rangers are acting like #$%#$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rogue Daddy
On 17/06/2022 at 09:06, Hagar the Horrible said:

The guy is a bigger screw up than John Swinney but he keeps getting re-elected. But to answer your question he is Celtics yes man, he is seen as quote "a very able man"  the majority of clubs are subservant to Celtic, who still have the CONCH.

 

Doncaster has succesfully promoted sponsers that have been factually a worse deal than ones 20 years earlier

 

BOS, Clydesdale, Ladbrokes etc, you do some ressearch which I might do later cinch itsh shfriday  "sorry"

 

But this cinch deal which has been spun by Murdo MacLennan as a successful revision, which allows one member NOT to use its branding but they will still get any pro-rata payments from it.

 

Its still a deal for the whole of Scottish football which values our product as less than half of Tottenhams sleeve, but just a wee bit better than Crystal Palace, and about the same as Nothampton Saints RFU.  But no where near the LTA (Wimbledon Fortnight)......

 

Doncaster and MacLennon faced a vote of no confidence and demands for a full enquiry,  3 or 4 clubs putting a proposal is enough, and 1/3rd is more than enough but after Liewell rousing speach 2/3rd backed down to Celtic.

 

Rangers are the victors in this skirmish, they get the benefits from the deal but dont have to abide by the deal and a free to use that space for their own deals.

 

Sevco want the Conch but have never regained they status as they have rebranded as a Rangers.  They still dont hold that power that the former club once had, they want the Conch but are still the pigs head.  Doncaster is basically Roger.

 

 

 

It was an independent enquiry that sevco offered to pay for... interesting that Liewell gave his speech, even though (at that time) he had feck-all to do with the SPFL board. Who invited HIM to that party?... - although i suppose he was a chairman. Quite telling though.

Edited by Rogue Daddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth to Paisley

Presume his contract has an end date (if its too expensive to terminate i ... or has he slipped in a rolling contract ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth to Paisley

From The Athletic

Another Doncaster/ Rangers mess that may have implications for everyone else.

 

@Footballfirst - one you will hopefully provide your take.

 

Long read

 

In rewriting the league’s sponsorship deal with the car-sales website Cinch to curtail a year-long dispute with Rangers, the SPFL escaped from a headlock. But, in untangling itself from one predicament, it has wound up with a brand that some major clubs are concerned may have hamstrung Scottish football’s ability to generate revenue.

After a protracted battle over Rangers’ decision to invoke Rule I7 and refuse to promote branding for Cinch due to an existing deal with Park’s Motor Group, a rival company owned by the club’s chairman Douglas Park, the revised contract contains a clause that precludes Rangers from being part of any league-wide sponsorship offering for the next four years.

Rangers do not have to display Cinch branding and the deal is reduced by £400,000 over the five years. But it also means that when it comes to any collective sponsorship agreement the SPFL looks to do with, say, an airline company or a supermarket, it will be able to offer up only 41 of its 42 clubs — and not Rangers.

The derby against Celtic is not the sole selling point but people within the Scottish game are realistic enough to know that the Old Firm is the crown jewel and this could hit clubs in the pocket.

It is no wonder that SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster has been fielding calls from concerned club executives who had deciphered the ambiguous wording of the resolution and noticed the potential for problems.

“This can’t be right, surely?” was the million-dollar question being asked.

In a move to assuage fears, The Athletic understands Doncaster informed one club that he had received written assurances from Cinch that it was not the company’s intention to — and it would not — demand Rangers be excluded from any other deal. It is felt this helped push the vote through quickly in what was said to be a “forceful” resolution with clubs being urged to back the proposal.

The other team to vote down the resolution, in addition to Rangers, are understood to have done so because their board were concerned that Rangers continuing to receive their split of the fee, despite providing no inventory, could set a precedent.

Other clubs were not aware what the clause meant when they cast their vote. It wasn’t referenced in the briefing notes and the SPFL didn’t share the concerns of the clubs who had contacted them regarding the clause so they could be fully informed.

Whether or not the commercial contract contained different wording is unknown, but Rangers believe that is redundant because the resolution the Premiership clubs voted on included these words: “The SPFL shall not grant (or permit the grant of) the Rangers Related Rights (or any similar rights) implying any sponsorship of or similar association with the SPFL, the League or the Divisions to any third party at any time throughout the remaining term.”

Several sports and commercial lawyers are in agreement that the wording is “crystal clear”.

One solicitor with experience of commercial contracts said: “Perhaps it’s a drafting error as it would be odd for the SPFL to agree to such a demand. The brand exposure that Rangers can bring to the table would be valuable to any prospective sponsor and, arguably, one of the key attractions to getting involved in the first place.

“To lose one of the biggest clubs in the league would not only reduce the value of any sponsorship deal but perhaps result in prospective sponsors not getting involved at all.

“What is clear is that if that wording is contained within the actual agreement, it could give Cinch an opportunity to try and invoke the prohibition regardless of their original intentions. I can understand why clubs are looking for clarification as to the position and why Rangers may want to explore their options moving forward.”

The significance of this is caveated by some who point out there is currently no major scope left when it comes to seeking sponsorship of different aspects of the brand. The league has existing deals with pizza firm Papa John’s, which is its official delivery and takeaway partner, and with The Loch Lomond Group as the official vodka and whiskey sponsor, which has exclusive naming rights to the player and manager of the month awards.

DOUGLAS-PARK-RANGERS
Rangers chairman Douglas Park hit out at the SPFL last week (Photo: Alan Harvey/SNS Group via Getty Images)

However, they lapse at the end of the upcoming season and are industries it is understood Rangers will aggressively target. Rangers still maintain that this could all have been avoided, as they informed the SPFL that the Cinch deal would clash with Park’s and they could not guarantee inventory.

A date for a meeting between all 12 Premiership clubs is being discussed. The SPFL has said it welcomes the opportunity to speak freely about the last year after Park launched a blistering attack on their corporate governance last Thursday over their handling of the Cinch dispute. He said that the SPFL strategy was to “bully” the club and that the league would rather “spend their members’ money than admit their mistakes”.

He accused the SPFL of abusing the Scottish Football Association’s arbitration process and having “brought the game into disrepute”. Park is calling for the SFA to carry out an independent investigation into the issue, adding that it owes SPFL members, the SFA, the Park family and Rangers an apology. The SPFL responded with a statement bemoaning a breach of confidentiality and said if Rangers agreed this no longer applied, it will “provide a full and frank narrative” to “set the record straight”.

Rangers’ motives are a subject of debate, as they called for the removal of Doncaster, lawyer Rod McKenzie and chairman Murdoch MacLennan from the SPFL two years ago. They tried to rally support for an internal investigation into the vote to truncate the pandemic-hit 2019-20 season after Dundee’s vote vanished before being resubmitted in support of the SPFL. Rangers did not reach the required support as only 12 clubs voted with them and two abstained.

One Premiership club executive has told The Athletic that most in the top flight view this as an issue between Rangers and the SPFL. It is a view echoed down the divisions and, in part, an explanation as to why apathy tends to rule the day.

“The rest of us want rid of it but if something big comes out of this meeting then it could cause problems as, if they can’t sell the league, questions should be asked of the SPFL,” they said.

“The SPFL seem confident they can be open and transparent, so let’s have that meeting and listen. People would pay a fortune to hear what is going to be said.”

While there is little hope of the two sides finding common ground, there is optimism that officials will be encouraged to speak freely and move the agenda on to how the body improves and breaks the common themes of infighting and intransigence.

Others want the conversation opened up to the floor, so that it can be about changing the process of how things are done rather than rehashing old arguments. For some, the “cloak and dagger” culture is exemplified by not giving clubs an update on a dispute with a fellow member.


Cinch came into Scottish football as part of a bold strategy to enter the car-sales industry via heavy sponsorship spend in sport.

The company has deals with Premier League club Crystal Palace, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Queen’s tennis tournament and the NFL’s annual series of London games, making it one of only four new brands to break into the top 10 of marketing experts Onside’s most appealing sponsors in 2021.

 

The latter two of the events listed above are seasonal and deals with individual clubs will only draw a particular audience, so the attraction of sponsoring all four levels of the SPFL was that Cinch would be buying access to 42 different clubs. It is understood that Scotland being the best-supported league in Europe per head of population convinced Cinch it was a market that would bring its brand into focus.

There were said to be lots of people involved in the discussions to seal the deal last summer but, even though lawyers were hired to comb over the details, a pitfall lay in the small print of the SPFL’s rules that provided Rangers with a way to undermine what Cinch had been promised.

Yet there was little anticipation that this would lead to such an acrimonious dispute as it is not uncommon in other countries and sports for there to be an overlap between league sponsors and club sponsors. Manchester City, for example, do not wear the Emirates sleeve patches other teams do when playing in the FA Cup, which has the airline as title sponsor, due to their association with another major carrier, Etihad.

Would Cinch still have invested had it known it would not have had Rangers’ backing for five years?

“Companies are trying to buy access to an audience so, if you remove one of the biggest teams, that is reduced and it is less compelling for sponsors to invest. But the fact the renegotiation happened shows they are committed too,” says a source involved in the deal.

They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, though, and this may be the case in point. A YouGov poll which measured whether consumers had seen an advertisement saw Cinch achieve a greater increase than any other automotive brand in May.

The Scottish league went two years without a title sponsor from 2013 and then another 12 months after bookmaker Ladbrokes’ five-year association came to an end in 2020.

The SPFL outsourced the task of finding a title sponsor to GV6 Sports Marketing, which paraded the attractiveness of the Scottish leagues, saying a deal would deliver “brand profile and customer engagement for Cinch at 768 matches per season with over 85 million live TV viewers across more than 150 countries”.

Rangers had been critical of the SPFL outsourcing what they viewed as an integral part of a job Doncaster is paid £388,000 a year to do. It is noted that it is common for sporting federations to do this. But when the sponsorship was worth £1.6 million per season, split among the 42 teams, paying out £500,000 (six per cent of its total value) in fees over the lifespan of the contract to GV6 for brokering, the deal is significant.

As commercial deals are only voted on by Premiership clubs, with an 8-4 majority required to pass, the other 30 clubs in the three tiers below are not privy to the details. The only way some have found out is by speaking to counterparts in the Premiership but several clubs The Athletic has spoken to were unaware of the new clause. The funds are heavily weighted to the top tier, though, with 82 per cent of the money going to the 12 Premiership clubs and the rest split among the bottom three divisions.

When legal fees for the dispute with Rangers run well into six figures, taking the total deductions from the £8 million pot to comfortably more than £1 million when considering renegotiated fees and agency payments, the revelation that future contracts could be compromised may have been expected to spark a more vocal reaction from clubs other than Rangers.

But conversations with various chairs and executives of lower league clubs make it clear that the lack of a trickle-down effect from centralised sponsorship deals makes next to no difference to their bottom line.

Lower-division sides generate the bulk of their funds from their local communities. One League Two chairman says clubs at those levels are so preoccupied with getting through each season afloat that to publicly rail against the SPFL is “a risk not worth taking as it needs everyone to come out as one”.

The Cinch deal is worth just £15,000 a year for Championship clubs and arguably takes away their opportunity to strike a deal worth far more. One club executive says they could have negotiated a fee several times over what the Cinch sponsorship is worth — for purely the sleeve patch rather than the additional advertising boards, pre-game on-pitch arch and interview backboards.

“There’s not a big commercial team, as Rangers and Celtic can be prohibitive as they feel they can go out and sell more themselves. I get that, but no one is selling any commercial deals for the other 40 clubs,” says a Championship source.

“It’s been undersold and the structure is wrong. The (top flight) SPL was known as the Self Preservation League for a reason. You’ve got to try and beat the system but the only way to beat it is to join it.

“Most of the teams in the bottom couple of divisions just roll along with it. If there was a central body and a more equitable split, all 40 clubs would support it. But if it was ever going to get changed it would have been changed at the vote two years ago.”

(Main image: Cinch chief commercial officer Robert Bridge, left, and SPFL chief executive Doncaster unveil the sponsorship deal last summer. Photo: John Phillips/Getty Images)

Edited by Perth to Paisley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, for the love of God, nobody quote your post to reply to you :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth to Paisley
7 minutes ago, tian447 said:

Please, for the love of God, nobody quote your post to reply to you :lol:

 

Did say it was a long read.

 

Summary is that Doncaster mucked up and spending loads of  clubs money to cover his Jacksy..

😁

Edited by Perth to Paisley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tartofmidlothian
11 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Did say it was a long read.

 

Summary is that Doncaster mucked up and spending loads of  clubs money to cover his Jacksy..

😁

 

I'm interested to hear what our position is, which was the other club to vote against? Also interesting that the vote which demoted us is brought up again, I'd be happy to see that dragged over if anyone wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
46 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

From The Athletic

Another Doncaster/ Rangers mess that may have implications for everyone else.

 

@Footballfirst - one you will hopefully provide your take.

Thanks for the article, but it's not a surprise.  Rangers exemption will apply as long as their Park's contract or the SPFL's cinch contract lasts. However, I don't think that the underlying problem is the conflicting contracts. It's Rangers hatred of Doncaster, McLennan and McKenzie who they view as favouring Celtic. 

 

I can see further issues cropping up over the next year or two just because Rangers want to pursue their fight with the SPFL executives.

 

The other clubs acquiescence to the amended arrangements is just symptomatic of the acceptance of years of being grateful for the scraps left on the table after the OF have had their fill.  I don't have a solution, but ultimately it's in the clubs own hands to force change. I've seen little evidence of a desire among clubs to change the status quo, whether it is Hearts, Morton, Falkirk or Stenhousemuir.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth to Paisley
13 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

 

13 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Thanks for the article, but it's not a surprise.  Rangers exemption will apply as long as their Park's contract or the SPFL's cinch contract lasts. However, I don't think that the underlying problem is the conflicting contracts. It's Rangers hatred of Doncaster, McLennan and McKenzie who they view as favouring Celtic. 

 

I can see further issues cropping up over the next year or two just because Rangers want to pursue their fight with the SPFL executives.

 

The other clubs acquiescence to the amended arrangements is just symptomatic of the acceptance of years of being grateful for the scraps left on the table after the OF have had their fill.  I don't have a solution, but ultimately it's in the clubs own hands to force change. I've seen little evidence of a desire among clubs to change the status quo, whether it is Hearts, Morton, Falkirk or Stenhousemuir.

I am concerned that the change was not called out in the briefing papers. - deliberate or by error?

 

Also slightly concerned that none of the clubs legal reps spotted the issue.

Edited by Perth to Paisley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
9 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

 

I am concerned that the change was not called out in the briefing papers. - deliberate or by error?

 

Also slightly concerned that none of the clubs legal reps spotted the issue.

The SPFL will do whatever they have to do to get resolutions approved. If that means limiting information sharing or pressurising individual clubs to vote in a certain way, then they will do it.

 

I'm certain that virtually all clubs have, or seek, little or no legal advice before voting on any resolution. If it sounds ok and doesn't have a significant impact on their individual wellbeing, then they will vote in accordance with the SPFL Board's wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The SPFL will do whatever they have to do to get resolutions approved. If that means limiting information sharing or pressurising individual clubs to vote in a certain way, then they will do it.

 

I'm certain that virtually all clubs have, or seek, little or no legal advice before voting on any resolution. If it sounds ok and doesn't have a significant impact on their individual wellbeing, then they will vote in accordance with the SPFL Board's wishes.

I read what you are saying, but I think that applies to some current SPL clubs and ALL championship clubs down.

 

It's time the clubs who commissioned the Deloitte review, started letting people know what deloitte have come up with.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other club to have voted against was us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth to Paisley
1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

I read what you are saying, but I think that applies to some current SPL clubs and ALL championship clubs down.

 

It's time the clubs who commissioned the Deloitte review, started letting people know what deloitte have come up with.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other club to have voted against was us.

 

As owners,  i think it reasonable that the club board give FoH an annual [?] summary of any material decisions made and the rationale behind it.

This sounds like an example.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Thanks for the article, but it's not a surprise.  Rangers exemption will apply as long as their Park's contract or the SPFL's cinch contract lasts. However, I don't think that the underlying problem is the conflicting contracts. It's Rangers hatred of Doncaster, McLennan and McKenzie who they view as favouring Celtic. 

 

I can see further issues cropping up over the next year or two just because Rangers want to pursue their fight with the SPFL executives.

 

The other clubs acquiescence to the amended arrangements is just symptomatic of the acceptance of years of being grateful for the scraps left on the table after the OF have had their fill.  I don't have a solution, but ultimately it's in the clubs own hands to force change. I've seen little evidence of a desire among clubs to change the status quo, whether it is Hearts, Morton, Falkirk or Stenhousemuir.

I agree. From the article above…
“Rangers’ motives are a subject of debate, as they called for the removal of Doncaster, lawyer Rod McKenzie and chairman Murdoch MacLennan from the SPFL two years ago. They tried to rally support for an internal investigation into the vote to truncate the pandemic-hit 2019-20 season…”

There’s long been a suspicion that the antipathy toward Doncaster simply stems from the fact Celtic gained a ninth consecutive title as a result of what happened in 2019-20. 
There obviously couldn’t be a greater sin in the eyes of someone like Park who squandered part of his personal fortune bankrolling Gerrard’s title challenge the following season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Perth to Paisley said:

 

As owners,  i think it reasonable that the club board give FoH an annual [?] summary of any material decisions made and the rationale behind it.

This sounds like an example.

 

 

FOH knows all the decisions that the club Board makes, there are 2 FOH directors on the club board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...