Sevco at it again

[hibbysam]

Nope I don’t think so.

Yes in the short term cinch may be getting some extra coverage from this but this is no way to run a sponsorship. I have said before and I will say it again - the only issue here are the properties available to cinch as part of the deal and this contract issue is a sideshow.

You have said Sevco are somehow fighting the good fight here and it will somehow mean Scottish football gets more money for sponsorship and tv rights in future. You are wrong.

Sponsorship attracts sponsorship - by that I mean that brands tend to follow the herd. The people making the decisions like predictable results.

This is why, for the same money as title sponsorship for the entire Scottish league, brands prefer to become third tier official noodle partner or whatever at Man Utd.

If you don’t like the word disaster how about s***show?

It’s only not a disaster as Doncaster has told us that it’s not required for financial stability of the league. It’s worth less than 5% of the overall income for the company. It’s really not important to the prize money handed out, it makes very little difference.

That is all well and good, but we’ve sold this on a 5 year contract, so even if better came along in future on the back of this then we’re stuck with them. It’s desperation from Doncaster after the lashing he took last year. He’s taken anything Cinch have thrown at him, and if Rangers did warn them prior to signing the deal then he has ignored one of the biggest aspects of the deal.

You are telling me I’m wrong, how can you possibly tell someone with a better business brain couldn’t come in and get a better deal? You can’t. Doncaster has said in the past he’d rather take no deal than a crap deal (sounds familiar) and he’s went against that here IMO.

[Callum_62]

. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210809/0bd92162fef9aed81ec1e188c6a91f62.jpg

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

It’s only not a disaster as Doncaster has told us that it’s not required for financial stability of the league. It’s worth less than 5% of the overall income for the company. It’s really not important to the prize money handed out, it makes very little difference.

That is all well and good, but we’ve sold this on a 5 year contract, so even if better came along in future on the back of this then we’re stuck with them. It’s desperation from Doncaster after the lashing he took last year. He’s taken anything Cinch have thrown at him, and if Rangers did warn them prior to signing the deal then he has ignored one of the biggest aspects of the deal.

You are telling me I’m wrong, how can you possibly tell someone with a better business brain couldn’t come in and get a better deal? You can’t. Doncaster has said in the past he’d rather take no deal than a crap deal (sounds familiar) and he’s went against that here IMO.


Did you even read my post??

You are just posting nonsense now.

[Scorrie]

Did we not have a similar scenario when we were sponsored by Marathonbet but played in the Ladbrokes League?

[jacomo]

. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210809/0bd92162fef9aed81ec1e188c6a91f62.jpg

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk


This letter gets to the heart of the issue.

Unlike a couple of posters on here, the SPFL are not being distracted by this nonsense sideshow about pre-existing contracts. I can only hope the arbitration panel are as clear-headed.

[jacomo]

Did we not have a similar scenario when we were sponsored by Marathonbet but played in the Ladbrokes League?


Of course. As have the Rangers and Rangers before them, many times.

What seems to have happened is that one of their directors has kicked off because they see cinch as a threat to their business interests, and the Rangers are trying to make out that the SPFL are to blame.

The title sponsor will have an agreed list of benefits (advertising, access to players etc). The Rangers will have known this and signed it off ages ago. There may also be a list of industries and companies that they will not accept sponsorship from. Again, the Rangers will have signed this off.

Everything else is a distraction.

[hibbysam]

This letter gets to the heart of the issue.

Unlike a couple of posters on here, the SPFL are not being distracted by this nonsense sideshow about pre-existing contracts. I can only hope the arbitration panel are as clear-headed.

The main point in the letter is about the ‘pre existing contract’ and the fact that would prevent them giving Cinch inventory. That’s the crux of the argument and acknowledged by the leagues chairperson.

[malcolm]

The main point in the letter is about the ‘pre existing contract’ and the fact that would prevent them giving Cinch inventory. That’s the crux of the argument and acknowledged by the leagues chairperson.

That would be the one no one can even guess what it is or see any evidence of its existence and of which that club have been unable to demonstrate anything to show that it exists or if it does that it is in conflict. Given these actual facts and the track record of that club, it seems incredibly unlikely that it exists. I’m happy to assume it does not. No idea why anyone would assume it does.

[gbhibby]

Rangers are part of the SPFL and should abide by the rules. If they do not like it impose sanctions on them. You cannot have one club telling the organisation they are refusing to comply. The bigger picture here is future sponsorship of league.
SPFL need to grow a pair.

[Smartie]

Rangers are being given a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve by people even entertaining the notion of the conflict of interests.

They've spotted an opportunity to sow division and whip up the paranoia of their hordes in claiming to somehow be treated differently and worse than any other club would reasonably claim to be.

It's utter drivel and I'm confident that any credible arbitration process would find it to be just that.

Unless the arbitration panel consists of Jimmy Bell, Bomber Broon, Durranty and King Billy then I expect it to conclude appropriately.

Scotland being Scotland though, you're either one of those muppets or an enemy of Rangers.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[jacomo]

The main point in the letter is about the ‘pre existing contract’ and the fact that would prevent them giving Cinch inventory. That’s the crux of the argument and acknowledged by the leagues chairperson.


I think it’s already been established that you don’t read things properly.

[ancient hibee]

I think it’s already been established that you don’t read things properly.
I hate to intervene in a long running argument but the fourth paragraph of the league letter makes it quite clear that whether or not there is a pre contract is the crux of the matter.

[gbhibby]

SPFL should tell Rangers that until they comply, no fans or TV coverage of any type will be allowed as the commercial integrity of the SPFL is being compromised.
Its the league that have a contract with cinch The Rangers are part of that league so like it or not must comply.

[PatHead]

SPFL should tell Rangers that until they comply, no fans or TV coverage of any type will be allowed as the commercial integrity of the SPFL is being compromised.

Doubt cinch would be happy with that.

[gbhibby]

Doubt cinch would be happy with that.
Some commercial organisations have pulled the plug on sponsorships when issues arise. I am sure if SPFL hit The Rangers in the pocket they would comply.

[Eyrie]

I hate to intervene in a long running argument but the fourth paragraph of the league letter makes it quite clear that whether or not there is a pre contract is the crux of the matter.

It's very interesting that Sevco have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence of this pre-existing contract.

[neil7908]

The main point in the letter is about the ‘pre existing contract’ and the fact that would prevent them giving Cinch inventory. That’s the crux of the argument and acknowledged by the leagues chairperson.

Indeed. And Sevco have been asked to produce this - and they haven't. This matter could have been cleared up in minutes if they'd done so.

Why do you think they'd hold back providing evidence on this if it does actually exist?

[Northernhibee]

Expel them from the league.

[CentreLine]

Rangers are being given a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve by people even entertaining the notion of the conflict of interests.

They've spotted an opportunity to sow division and whip up the paranoia of their hordes in claiming to somehow be treated differently and worse than any other club would reasonably claim to be.

It's utter drivel and I'm confident that any credible arbitration process would find it to be just that.

Unless the arbitration panel consists of Jimmy Bell, Bomber Broon, Durranty and King Billy then I expect it to conclude appropriately.

Scotland being Scotland though, you're either one of those muppets or an enemy of Rangers.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The the Rangers will be relying on Hearts, Patrick and Inverness riding white chargers to their cause. They’ll be hoping these clubs have a deep enough rooted desire to “get even” for their perception of unfairness. It’s an injustice it is

[PatHead]

Insist that they are called The Rangers 2012 from now on and all previous titles are allocated to the old,dead club.

Nothing would hurt them more.

[Kato]

Expunge them from the universe.

fixed

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

the main point in the letter is about the lack of ‘pre existing contract’ and the fact that would prevent them giving cinch inventory. That’s the crux of the argument and acknowledged by the leagues chairperson.

ftfy

[Moulin Yarns]

It's very interesting that Sevco have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence of this pre-existing contract.

You cannot provide what you don’t have 🤔😉

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/sport/spfl-to-take-sponsorship-dispute-with-rangers-to-arbitration?top

Bring it on. 👍

[Kato]

https://news.stv.tv/sport/spfl-to-take-sponsorship-dispute-with-rangers-to-arbitration?top

Bring it on. [emoji106]Beggars belief.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Juniper Greens]

I hope hibbysam is looking forward to getting back in his season ticket....in Govan!

Rangers are full of it here and the SPFL should call them out, be proved correct and then take action.

Remember their "dosier of evidence" last year. Rangers fans still bark on like that was explosive and they were in the right. This will be the same, even when they have to back down eventually

[Jim44]

Showing balls for once.

[hibbysam]

Indeed. And Sevco have been asked to produce this - and they haven't. This matter could have been cleared up in minutes if they'd done so.

Why do you think they'd hold back providing evidence on this if it does actually exist?

To be awkward and have it played out in public to make a stand against Doncaster. To prove a point to the country that they made the league aware. The motives not to produce evidence is clear, however it remains to be seen whether they have evidence or not. If they do they can’t be punished is my point.

[660]

Rangers are the most loathsome club in world football

[hibbysam]

I hope hibbysam is looking forward to getting back in his season ticket....in Govan!

Rangers are full of it here and the SPFL should call them out, be proved correct and then take action.

Remember their "dosier of evidence" last year. Rangers fans still bark on like that was explosive and they were in the right. This will be the same, even when they have to back down eventually

😂😂 that old chestnut. 28 and been a STH for 24 of them, not that I need to prove my credentials to you. Just not one to hand out punishments before a conclusion has been made, and IF no rules have been broken like you lot want. If they don’t have any absolutely. If they do it’s a dangerous road for the SPFL and they’ll have some grovelling to do with Cinch.

[kaimendhibs]

Get them TF. Absolute ****bag of a club.

[Moulin Yarns]

To be awkward and have it played out in public to make a stand against Doncaster. To prove a point to the country that they made the league aware. The motives not to produce evidence is clear, however it remains to be seen whether they have evidence or not. If they do they can’t be punished is my point.

IF they have any evidence why have they not brought it forward?

That's the point I keep making.

[PatHead]

😂😂 that old chestnut. 28 and been a STH for 24 of them, not that I need to prove my credentials to you. Just not one to hand out punishments before a conclusion has been made, and IF no rules have been broken like you lot want. If they don’t have any absolutely. If they do it’s a dangerous road for the SPFL and they’ll have some grovelling to do with Cinch.

I think we all know that however Sevco have previous for this type of behaviour. Your constant repeating of your point is tiresome and boring.

Why can't you be like the rest of us and enjoy watching them be found out what they are?

[gbhibby]

Should not need to go to arbitration, The Rangers have and always will be an arrogant club who think they are the pepul. The SPFL are not run by the old firm. This episode will make sponsors think twice about getting involved in Scottish football.

[hibbysam]

I think we all know that however Sevco have previous for this type of behaviour. Your constant repeating of your point is tiresome and boring.

Why can't you be like the rest of us and enjoy watching them be found out what they are?

Yet here you are still replying to it. It’ll be hilarious if they are at it, likewise it’ll be hilarious if Doncaster has made an arse of it again, it wouldn’t be the first time, ‘Armageddon’ springs to mind, should’ve been out a job then.

[neil7908]

To be awkward and have it played out in public to make a stand against Doncaster. To prove a point to the country that they made the league aware. The motives not to produce evidence is clear, however it remains to be seen whether they have evidence or not. If they do they can’t be punished is my point.

If that's the case I'd say there is plenty of reason still to punish them. Not on the contract issue I guess but for behaving like a spoilt child and forcing arbitration when it's entirely unnecessary. For bringing the game into disrepute with their actions, undermining our commercial attraction for future sponsors etc.

And so what if they warned the SPFL earlier? If they behaved like this the conversation would be the same:

Sevco - Hi Neil, you know that sponsorship deal your about to sign? Well its a problem for us and we can't agree to promote it.

ND - whys that like?

Sevco - ah well it conflicts with another sponsorship and our contract with them.

ND - What sponsor?

Sevco - not saying

ND - well can you show us the contract?

Sevco - ....

ND - Guess I'll just crack on then.

If as you suggest this is all just a game they are playing then we need to enact a very strong punishment to stop others deciding to do likewise when it suits them.

[Juniper Greens]

If that's the case I'd say there is plenty of reason still to punish them. Not on the contract issue I guess but for behaving like a spoilt child and forcing arbitration when it's entirely unnecessary. For bringing the game into disrepute with their actions, undermining our commercial attraction for future sponsors etc.

And so what if they warned the SPFL earlier? If they behaved like this the conversation would be the same:

Sevco - Hi Neil, you know that sponsorship deal your about to sign? Well its a problem for us and we can't agree to promote it.

ND - whys that like?

Sevco - ah well it conflicts with another sponsorship and our contract with them.

ND - What sponsor?

Sevco - not saying

ND - well can you show us the contract?

Sevco - ....

ND - Guess I'll just crack on then.

If as you suggest this is all just a game they are playing then we need to enact a very strong punishment to stop others deciding to do likewise when it suits them.

Exactly this, but their fans lap it up! Idiots the lot of them

[hibbysam]

If that's the case I'd say there is plenty of reason still to punish them. Not on the contract issue I guess but for behaving like a spoilt child and forcing arbitration when it's entirely unnecessary. For bringing the game into disrepute with their actions, undermining our commercial attraction for future sponsors etc.

And so what if they warned the SPFL earlier? If they behaved like this the conversation would be the same:

Sevco - Hi Neil, you know that sponsorship deal your about to sign? Well its a problem for us and we can't agree to promote it.

ND - whys that like?

Sevco - ah well it conflicts with another sponsorship and our contract with them.

ND - What sponsor?

Sevco - not saying

ND - well can you show us the contract?

Sevco - ....

ND - Guess I'll just crack on then.

If as you suggest this is all just a game they are playing then we need to enact a very strong punishment to stop others deciding to do likewise when it suits them.

I’d say that would be extremely hard to prove, although we know what their underlying motives would be. It’s not just a game, if they had a contract I’d guess they started with ‘good’ intentions (ie not to conflict with their own partners for whatever reason), but as soon as the SPFL went public (who knows if that was before or after they asked for proof) then they seen it as an opportunity to go after Doncaster and co.

[monarch]

😂😂 that old chestnut. 28 and been a STH for 24 of them, not that I need to prove my credentials to you. Just not one to hand out punishments before a conclusion has been made, and IF no rules have been broken like you lot want. If they don’t have any absolutely. If they do it’s a dangerous road for the SPFL and they’ll have some grovelling to do with Cinch.

“like you lot want”. A strange way to describe fellow Hibs supporters.

Even outwith this thread you do have a record of springing to Rangers defence on various issues.

[hibbysam]

“like you lot want”. A strange way to describe fellow Hibs supporters.

Even outwith this thread you do have a record of springing to Rangers defence on various issues.

A record? It’s a message board where I’ll reply to threads I’m interested in and have an opinion on. I’ll also have another ‘record’ slating them on other things. The biggest opinion you’ll see me have of them is that they and Celtic are two cheeks of one arse and equally as bad as one another.

Apologies for using the message board and not jumping to conclusions just because of the colour of a teams shirt.

[Eyrie]

I’d say that would be extremely hard to prove, although we know what their underlying motives would be. It’s not just a game, if they had a contract I’d guess they started with ‘good’ intentions (ie not to conflict with their own partners for whatever reason), but as soon as the SPFL went public (who knows if that was before or after they asked for proof) then they seen it as an opportunity to go after Doncaster and co.

Why didn't SPFL director Stewart Robertson (you know, the man who issued the Sevco statement) show good intentions by raising an objection at the SPFL board meeting which approved the contract?

If he did, why would the SPFL sign the contract without asking Sevco to provide evidence of their "pre existing" contract?

And if Sevco do have a pre existing contract, why have they not provided any evidence despite being asked?

Your Donald Findlay impression isn't very successful when your entire case is based on taking your word for it and ignoring all questions.

[hibbysam]

Why didn't SPFL director Stewart Robertson (you know, the man who issued the Sevco statement) show good intentions by raising an objection at the SPFL board meeting which approved the contract?

If he did, why would the SPFL sign the contract without asking Sevco to provide evidence of their "pre existing" contract?

And if Sevco do have a pre existing contract, why have they not provided any evidence despite being asked?

Your Donald Findlay impression isn't very successful when your entire case is based on taking your word for it and ignoring all questions.

That’ll all come out, one way or the other. We’re being asked to believe one side or the other, I don’t particularly believe either, but more willing to wait until it all plays out and enjoy the ride either way.

On the first point Rangers have advised they raised an objection prior to it being agreed. The SPFL haven’t said otherwise unless I’m missing that part.
Second point I’ve said if that happened, then IMO it was Doncaster making a point of getting a sponsor at all costs after last year and a good news story for him after that year. Again, rightly or wrongly that’ll come out whether it was brought up or not.
On your last point I’ve said, once the SPFL went public I reckon Rangers have taken the hump and sensed an opportunity. Whether they were asked for evidence first is unclear as it wasn’t mentioned in either statement I don’t think.

Similar to last summer, feet up and enjoy the ride. Whichever way it goes the popcorn will be out.

[007]

https://news.stv.tv/sport/spfl-to-take-sponsorship-dispute-with-rangers-to-arbitration?top

Bring it on. 👍

Surprise surprise, Rangers weren't able to produce evidence of the deal conflicting with their existing deal. They should have been able to prove it straight away and they've been given plenty of time so anything they produce now will have obviously only just been drafted but dated x number of months ago, to make it look like it was put in place ages ago.

Are they still greetin' about liquidation and having to start in League 2? Is that why they're pursuing this vendetta against Doncaster? Hopefully he beats them at arbitration like he beat Hearts last year. If Rangers kill the deal with cinch then they can stump up the £8m to cover it. £8m, that has a familiar ring to it. Is that not the amount Budge was claiming in compensation at last year's arbitration?

[jacomo]

I’d say that would be extremely hard to prove, although we know what their underlying motives would be. It’s not just a game, if they had a contract I’d guess they started with ‘good’ intentions (ie not to conflict with their own partners for whatever reason), but as soon as the SPFL went public (who knows if that was before or after they asked for proof) then they seen it as an opportunity to go after Doncaster and co.


You’ve genuinely lost me here.

[HoboHarry]

Rangers are the most loathsome club in world football

On my list of loathsome clubs, Sevco are in first, second and third place.

[The Harp Awakes]

On my list of loathsome clubs, Sevco are in first, second and third place.

Agreed. They're also a bunch o weirdos :crazy:

[duffers]

Away from the actual point a bit, will cinch not be absolutely loving this? They do say there is no such thing as bad advertising and they are getting a hell of a lot for free just now….

[The Count]

So at a time when sponsership is hard to get Sevco wanted the rest of Scottish football to pass on the Cinch deal because one of their directors has a car dealership and some minor contract with them ??? Now even if that is true how selfish is that to the rest of us? Surely the correct way to go is to flag it up but say for the good of Scottish football crack on with the Cinch deal.But no they have to make a song and dance about nothing.My believe is for years they ran Scottish football and always got their own way and now they cannot handle the fact that there power has diminished.

[Northernhibee]

We can’t sell Beetles

[Bostonhibby]

Rangers statement to clubs:

We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.

“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.

“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.

“We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.

“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.

“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:

Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?

Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?

Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?

It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game.

Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director?
“I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson

Managing Director.”Did the now defunct Glasgow rangers break any of their contractual obligations when they failed to pay their many previous creditors?

Hypocrisy methinks.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Away from the actual point a bit, will cinch not be absolutely loving this? They do say there is no such thing as bad advertising and they are getting a hell of a lot for free just now….


Short term bump maybe but overall, no.

As I have said above, most sponsors hate this kind of spat. More seriously, it will make any future sponsors question whether SPFL can deliver what it says.

Both this and Sevco’s treatment of media outlets is holding our game back.

[Iain G]

That’ll all come out, one way or the other. We’re being asked to believe one side or the other, I don’t particularly believe either, but more willing to wait until it all plays out and enjoy the ride either way.

On the first point Rangers have advised they raised an objection prior to it being agreed. The SPFL haven’t said otherwise unless I’m missing that part.
Second point I’ve said if that happened, then IMO it was Doncaster making a point of getting a sponsor at all costs after last year and a good news story for him after that year. Again, rightly or wrongly that’ll come out whether it was brought up or not.
On your last point I’ve said, once the SPFL went public I reckon Rangers have taken the hump and sensed an opportunity. Whether they were asked for evidence first is unclear as it wasn’t mentioned in either statement I don’t think.

Similar to last summer, feet up and enjoy the ride. Whichever way it goes the popcorn will be out.

Not sure when any sensibly minded human being would believe a word of anything that the glib and shameless owners at Sevco would say.

[ian cruise]

Away from the actual point a bit, will cinch not be absolutely loving this? They do say there is no such thing as bad advertising and they are getting a hell of a lot for free just now….

They're getting a bit more press than before now but they're also now being made the enemy in the eyes of Rangers fans who are unlikely to use Cinch. Wheres before this I doubt many would have though "oh I'd better use Parks because he's a Rangurs man", they will now.

It also makes contract renegotiation with Cinch or another party more difficult in future as they'll cast up this episode as bad press and ask why they would want to risk their investment when one of the larger supported clubs might turn potential customers against them.

From a marketing point of view I don't think they'll be overly happy.

[Juniper Greens]

So on the assumption that everything each side have said is correct, I think this is the alleged chain of events
Marketing agency bring cinch to spfl
Deal agreed in principle
Rangers raise that they aren't happy with it, claim to have a contradicting contract, but provide no evidence
Deal is then agreed by clubs and signed off by spfl board
Rangers ban cinch advertising from ground and don't wear the standard spfl sleeve badge on kit (as it says cinch premiership)
Papers pick up on it and ask questions of Rangers and spfl
Spfl confirm early stages of dispute
Rangers confirm dispute, moan that spfl "has gone public" and again fail to provide evidence of contract. They also moan about the value of the deal.
Can't be resolved, so goes to SFA hearing.

Now if I were to interpret this I'd say
There's no contract, Rangers maybe get mates rates off parks, but there is nothing written down. Parks is annoyed that a rival business is involved in the league. Similar examples exist everywhere at other clubs though (bookies, booze, energy companies all have league sponsors and club sponsors). The Deal maybe is quite low, but that's not what Rangers gripe was, they are now just pretending to be savoiurs by pointing this out. If parks was so against it, and it was so cheap, why didn't he bid for the rights?

I feel Rangers are in the wrong, they will be let off the hook though with some sort of BS compromise.

[JohnMcM]

Expel them from the league.

,,,,,,,,, and Hearts. Two birds with the one stone and all that:greengrin

[PatHead]

So on the assumption that everything each side have said is correct, I think this is the alleged chain of events
Marketing agency bring cinch to spfl
Deal agreed in principle
Rangers raise that they aren't happy with it, claim to have a contradicting contract, but provide no evidence
Deal is then agreed by clubs and signed off by spfl board
Rangers ban cinch advertising from ground and don't wear the standard spfl sleeve badge on kit (as it says cinch premiership)
Papers pick up on it and ask questions of Rangers and spfl
Spfl confirm early stages of dispute
Rangers confirm dispute, moan that spfl "has gone public" and again fail to provide evidence of contract. They also moan about the value of the deal.
Can't be resolved, so goes to SFA hearing.

Now if I were to interpret this I'd say
There's no contract, Rangers maybe get mates rates off parks, but there is nothing written down. Parks is annoyed that a rival business is involved in the league. Similar examples exist everywhere at other clubs though (bookies, booze, energy companies all have league sponsors and club sponsors). The Deal maybe is quite low, but that's not what Rangers gripe was, they are now just pretending to be savoiurs by pointing this out. If parks was so against it, and it was so cheap, why didn't he bid for the rights?

I feel Rangers are in the wrong, they will be let off the hook though with some sort of BS compromise.

Add one final point. The chance for revenge on all the clubs that voted for them to restart in the 3rd division.

[Northernhibee]

,,,,,,,,, and Hearts. Two birds with the one stone and all that:greengrin

Yep. I think that's the only fair solution.

Then make Steven Gerrard apologise to all the clubs in a silly high pitched voice (i.e. his normal voice).

[Caversham Green]

From what I can see of the rule The Rangers are quoting (I7 quoted earlier in the thread) they would have to not only show that there is a pre-existing contract, but also that advertising Cinch would cause them to be in breach of that contract - i.e. the contract would have to contain a clause that prevented The Rangers from advertising a company like Cinch. I very much doubt that clause exists.

Secondly, as Douglas Park is a director they would have to disclose any transactions with him or one of his companies in the annual accounts. Other than his loans there is no mention of such transactions, so according to the accounts (which the SPFL are entitled to rely on) there is no contract involving Douglas Park.

[number9dream]

If it goes ahead, the SFA won't be ruling on a commercial matter themselves will they? It may well be a case of appointing an independent tribunal like they did with the Hearts / Thistle relegation grievance.
I see reports saying Rangers would have to agree to the arbitration process. What happens if they stick to their belligerence in all matters and don't?
And, if they don't comply and get off with a slap on the wrist, do they just blithely collect their end of season prize money, some of which comes from the cinch deal? Maybe they will agree to pass on their share of the proceeds to the other 41 clubs...
If cinch walk away, it's a bad look for Scottish football and the SPFL probably lose the hefty agency fee paid.

[Moulin Yarns]

So on the assumption that everything each side have said is correct, I think this is the alleged chain of events
Marketing agency bring cinch to spfl
Deal agreed in principle
Rangers raise that they aren't happy with it, claim to have a contradicting contract, but provide no evidence
Deal is then agreed by clubs and signed off by spfl board
Rangers ban cinch advertising from ground and don't wear the standard spfl sleeve badge on kit (as it says cinch premiership)
Papers pick up on it and ask questions of Rangers and spfl
Spfl confirm early stages of dispute
Rangers confirm dispute, moan that spfl "has gone public" and again fail to provide evidence of contract. They also moan about the value of the deal.
Can't be resolved, so goes to SFA hearing.

Now if I were to interpret this I'd say
There's no contract, Rangers maybe get mates rates off parks, but there is nothing written down. Parks is annoyed that a rival business is involved in the league. Similar examples exist everywhere at other clubs though (bookies, booze, energy companies all have league sponsors and club sponsors). The Deal maybe is quite low, but that's not what Rangers gripe was, they are now just pretending to be savoiurs by pointing this out. If parks was so against it, and it was so cheap, why didn't he bid for the rights?

I feel Rangers are in the wrong, they will be let off the hook though with some sort of BS compromise.

Well done. That's a good summary. 👍

[Moulin Yarns]

From what I can see of the rule The Rangers are quoting (I7 quoted earlier in the thread) they would have to not only show that there is a pre-existing contract, but also that advertising Cinch would cause them to be in breach of that contract - i.e. the contract would have to contain a clause that prevented The Rangers from advertising a company like Cinch. I very much doubt that clause exists.

Secondly, as Douglas Park is a director they would have to disclose any transactions with him or one of his companies in the annual accounts. Other than his loans there is no mention of such transactions, so according to the accounts (which the SPFL are entitled to rely on) there is no contract involving Douglas Park.

:not worth:not worth:not worth

I knew it would take an accountant to sort it out :wink:

[007]

From what I can see of the rule The Rangers are quoting (I7 quoted earlier in the thread) they would have to not only show that there is a pre-existing contract, but also that advertising Cinch would cause them to be in breach of that contract - i.e. the contract would have to contain a clause that prevented The Rangers from advertising a company like Cinch. I very much doubt that clause exists.

Secondly, as Douglas Park is a director they would have to disclose any transactions with him or one of his companies in the annual accounts. Other than his loans there is no mention of such transactions, so according to the accounts (which the SPFL are entitled to rely on) there is no contract involving Douglas Park.

Don't know if this has already been posted further up the thread but there's certainly no sign of any Park's company on their website as a sponsor/partner.

https://i.ibb.co/V2kvPMB/Screenshot-20210810-131019-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/PwV5f1C)

[Torto7]

This is the same Sevco who have had the Easdale brothers involved in the past and seem to roll out the blue carpet for Bonzo Daniels and his fat very dodgy rich mate. Rancid club from the top to bottom. Without doubt the ****miest football club around. They should have been emptied when the opportunity arose.

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19503046.ex-rangers-executive-charles-green-wins-6m-lord-advocate-malicious-club-fraud-prosecution/

Charlie boy is quids in

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't know if this has already been posted further up the thread but there's certainly no sign of any Park's company on their website as a sponsor/partner.

https://i.ibb.co/V2kvPMB/Screenshot-20210810-131019-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/PwV5f1C)

That's been pointed out repeatedly but the hun apologists just ignored it.

[007]

That's been pointed out repeatedly but the hun apologists just ignored it.

Looking forward to arbitration and to see how well their gentlemen's agreement stands up.

[jacomo]

So on the assumption that everything each side have said is correct, I think this is the alleged chain of events
Marketing agency bring cinch to spfl
Deal agreed in principle
Rangers raise that they aren't happy with it, claim to have a contradicting contract, but provide no evidence
Deal is then agreed by clubs and signed off by spfl board
Rangers ban cinch advertising from ground and don't wear the standard spfl sleeve badge on kit (as it says cinch premiership)
Papers pick up on it and ask questions of Rangers and spfl
Spfl confirm early stages of dispute
Rangers confirm dispute, moan that spfl "has gone public" and again fail to provide evidence of contract. They also moan about the value of the deal.
Can't be resolved, so goes to SFA hearing.

Now if I were to interpret this I'd say
There's no contract, Rangers maybe get mates rates off parks, but there is nothing written down. Parks is annoyed that a rival business is involved in the league. Similar examples exist everywhere at other clubs though (bookies, booze, energy companies all have league sponsors and club sponsors). The Deal maybe is quite low, but that's not what Rangers gripe was, they are now just pretending to be savoiurs by pointing this out. If parks was so against it, and it was so cheap, why didn't he bid for the rights?

I feel Rangers are in the wrong, they will be let off the hook though with some sort of BS compromise.


Good summary, except that no one should take Sevco at their word these days. They are serial liars and have lost that right.

Yet again they seem to be making wild claims that are demonstrably false.

And yet again: if you want to increase the commercial value of Scottish football, this is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

[Billy Whizz]

Id expect Parks is a sponsor - I doubt Rangers are paying for their buses.

He’s Rangers chairman, and biggest individual shareholder, so has a bit of clout within the club

[WhileTheChief..]

Add one final point. The chance for revenge on all the clubs that voted for them to restart in the 3rd division.

I think it's the SPFL executive that Rangers are going after, not the other clubs.

They see this as a chance to put pressure on Doncaster and MacLennan.

If arbitration finds in Rangers favour then I can't really see how these two can stay in post.

If it goes against Rangers, all they have to do is foot the bill and comply with the adverts etc. At worst it's a bit if a beamer for them and a few quid. They probably feel it's a price worth paying to get rid of ND.

There is no sanction or punishment to be had for not winning arbitration.

[hibbysam]

That's been pointed out repeatedly but the hun apologists just ignored it.

😂😂 or that your just ignoring that what they have on their website has absolutely no bearing in court/arbitration, and it’s down to a contract that either has been or hasn’t been signed. Your website picture is irrelevant to the case.

[hibbysam]

I think it's the SPFL executive that Rangers are going after, not the other clubs.

They see this as a chance to put pressure on Doncaster and MacLennan.

If arbitration finds in Rangers favour then I can't really see how these two can stay in post.

If it goes against Rangers, all they have to do is foot the bill and comply with the adverts etc. At worst it's a bit if a beamer for them and a few quid. They probably feel it's a price worth paying to get rid of ND.

There is no sanction or punishment to be had for not winning arbitration.

Spot on.

[Smartie]

I think it's the SPFL executive that Rangers are going after, not the other clubs.

They see this as a chance to put pressure on Doncaster and MacLennan.

If arbitration finds in Rangers favour then I can't really see how these two can stay in post.

If it goes against Rangers, all they have to do is foot the bill and comply with the adverts etc. At worst it's a bit if a beamer for them and a few quid. They probably feel it's a price worth paying to get rid of ND.

There is no sanction or punishment to be had for not winning arbitration.

It's probably worth pointing out how perfectly prepared they are to see smaller Scottish clubs go without money that might have been very welcome indeed as we emerge from some tough times as they pursue their own agenda.

[hibbysam]

It's probably worth pointing out how perfectly prepared they are to see smaller Scottish clubs go without money that might have been very welcome indeed as we emerge from some tough times as they pursue their own agenda.

This money just goes into the pot for prize money at the end of the season I think, clubs below premiership level will see very little of it. While they would welcome an extra couple of thousand - the majority they get is from the TV money.

[CropleyWasGod]

😂😂 or that your just ignoring that what they have on their website has absolutely no bearing in court/arbitration, and it’s down to a contract that either has been or hasn’t been signed. Your website picture is irrelevant to the case.

As Cav has mentioned, if there's a contract with Park's, it should be disclosed in their accounts.Thus far, it hasn't been.

[Moulin Yarns]

😂😂 or that your just ignoring that what they have on their website has absolutely no bearing in court/arbitration, and it’s down to a contract that either has been or hasn’t been signed. Your website picture is irrelevant to the case.

Not my website picture for starters and you should have a read of the post from Caversham Green.

[Moulin Yarns]

As Cav has mentioned, if there's a contract with Park's, it should be disclosed in their accounts.Thus far, it hasn't been.

👍

[Juniper Greens]

This money just goes into the pot for prize money at the end of the season I think, clubs below premiership level will see very little of it. While they would welcome an extra couple of thousand - the majority they get is from the TV money.

You seem pretty determined, so I'm just going to leave you to it. I'll follow some Brian Clough advice and bow out of this thread

[hibbysam]

Not my website picture for starters and you should have a read of the post from Caversham Green.

I’ve read it, I was replying to you chatting about a website photo, nothing to do with accounts. What’s in their accounts is totally different to what their website shows when it comes to legality.

[CropleyWasGod]

This money just goes into the pot for prize money at the end of the season I think, clubs below premiership level will see very little of it. While they would welcome an extra couple of thousand - the majority they get is from the TV money.

The pot is paid out periodically during the season.

[hibbysam]

You seem pretty determined, so I'm just going to leave you to it. I'll follow some Brian Clough advice and bow out of this thread

Just pointing out that it will have most effect to our bigger clubs rather than those at the bottom of the game, such is the disparity from top to bottom in payouts.

[Moulin Yarns]

I’ve read it, I was replying to you chatting about a website photo, nothing to do with accounts. What’s in their accounts is totally different to what their website shows when it comes to legality.

You accused me of posting the image of the website, I did not.

As Cav has taken the time to check the latest accounts and found no payments to parks then it is very relevant. No payment, no contract.

[hibbysam]

You accused me of posting the image of the website, I did not.

As Cav has taken the time to check the latest accounts and found no payments to parks then it is very relevant. No payment, no contract.

My apologies, I never meant that you posted it, when saying your it was meant the picture you were replying about.

Time will tell, it’ll be an entertaining few weeks/months regardless for me. Similar to how it all played out last summer with Hearts v SPFL.

[Jim44]

Should Parks not be on this list?

https://www.rangers.co.uk/partners/2SmHSWaLyUqNvYPbace4t7

[Betty Boop]

Charles Green receives 6.4 million compensation for malicious prosecution.

[007]

Based on what has been reported it is hard to see how Rangers can win arbitration. They've been asked to produce evidence that their existing contract conflicts with the cinch one. If it does then it should only take someone 5 minutes to do it (or if doing via a lawyer then maximum a day or two surely). They've been given about a week (at least, or probably longer before it was out in public) and produced nothing so if they suddenly produce something at arbitration then I'd expect they'd have to do some explaining as to why they've held it back. As has been said before, it's the same BS as the "smoking gun" dossier.

Wouldn't surprise me if they take the huff at arbitration and start with the Budge line of "we'll take you to court".

[jacomo]

Charles Green receives 6.4 million compensation for malicious prosecution.


Greens involvement with Sevco turned out to be very lucrative.

Clearly, that prosecution went badly, badly wrong.

[Jim44]

I assume that, after a difficult week, with a loss against Malmo, a loss against Dundee United, cinchgate and memories of Charles Green raising it’s ugly head, we’ll all be rooting for Rangers tonight in their European campaign. :fibber::tee hee:

[CMurdoch]

I assume that, after a difficult week, with a loss against Malmo, a loss against Dundee United, cinchgate and memories of Charles Green raising it’s ugly head, we’ll all be rooting for Rangers tonight in their European campaign. :fibber::tee hee:

That went well!

[Juniper Greens]

Goal up, man up, should have been a cinch

[Moulin Yarns]

Should Parks not be on this list?

https://www.rangers.co.uk/partners/2SmHSWaLyUqNvYPbace4t7

Only if they have some kind of contract, putting something into rangers for a monetary consideration, dontcha think 😉

[HoboHarry]

Goal up, man up, should have been a cinch
:top marks :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Greens involvement with Sevco turned out to be very lucrative.

Clearly, that prosecution went badly, badly wrong.

And the man in charge of the Crown Office at the time is now a senior judge.

[Moulin Yarns]

And the man in charge of the Crown Office at the time is now a senior judge.

Any chance the SFA could appoint him to chair the arbitration panel 😉

[ancient hibee]

Any chance the SFA could appoint him to chair the arbitration panel 😉

With a name like Mulholland Rangers might smell a rat.

[PatHead]

Wonder if Sevco will now say it has all been a misunderstanding as they will need the money as they aren't getting champions League riches. This was their chance to close the financial gap on Celtic and they have blown it.

[southern hibby]

Is there any chance The rangers do have a contract but never brought it forward because they don’t want a third party to be privy to
What’s in it???

I know absolutely nothing about these things but if I had a contract with someone I’d be very quiet to what was in it, as this might make another competitor offer slightly better terms to beat my contract. Hope this makes sense.

GGTTH

[Kato]

Is there any chance The rangers do have a contract but never brought it forward because they don’t want a third party to be privy to
What’s in it???

I know absolutely nothing about these things but if I had a contract with someone I’d be very quiet to what was in it, as this might make another competitor offer slightly better terms to beat my contract. Hope this makes sense.

GGTTH

Should show up in the accounts though.

[southern hibby]

Should show up in the accounts though.

I agree should show up in the accounts, however it’s the current buns we’re on about and let’s be honest they’re no the best at paying tax so might only show up in the accounts if they’re declaring it.

Not sure how they could get away with not declaring it.

GGTTH

[Jones28]

Yes, they are most definitely at it again 😅

The league title will be a blip in the otherwise hilarious banter years.

[greenginger]

Hi
Is there any chance The rangers do have a contract but never brought it forward because they don’t want a third party to be privy to
What’s in it???

I know absolutely nothing about these things but if I had a contract with someone I’d be very quiet to what was in it, as this might make another competitor offer slightly better terms to beat my contract. Hope this makes sense.

GGTTH

easy to produce a contract with certain details blanked out.

[Greenbeard]

Goal up, man up, should have been a cinch
VG. The Rangers don't do cinch. Maybe they should have Parked the bus.
I read that the exit will cost them £35m. Some might say that's £35m not coming into the Scottish game. I say that's £35m not going to the continued indirect endorsement of bigotry and sectarianism.
Hopefully they had budgeted for and were relying on that £35m and will now dive headlong into another financial crisis which might see the demise of this vile club. Or would The The Rangers emerge from the second pile of ashes?

[neil7908]

VG. The Rangers don't do cinch. Maybe they should have Parked the bus.
I read that the exit will cost them £35m. Some might say that's £35m not coming into the Scottish game. I say that's £35m not going to the continued indirect endorsement of bigotry and sectarianism.
Hopefully they had budgeted for and were relying on that £35m and will now dive headlong into another financial crisis which might see the demise of this vile club. Or would The The Rangers emerge from the second pile of ashes?

Only an idiot would have budgeted for Champions League group stage football given Scottish clubs struggles in that competition the last few years.

Given the way Sevco are run I think it's likely that's exactly what they have done!

[Stuart93]

Only an idiot would have budgeted for Champions League group stage football given Scottish clubs struggles in that competition the last few years.

Given the way Sevco are run I think it's likely that's exactly what they have done!

Aye wouldn’t be surprised. They’ll also have no qualms about posting yet another huge loss for this year, it’s the status quo for them after all

[Since452]

Sooner that Rangers die again the better

[Billy Whizz]

Aye wouldn’t be surprised. They’ll also have no qualms about posting yet another huge loss for this year, it’s the status quo for them after all

Going to have to sell a few players too

[Ozyhibby]

Only an idiot would have budgeted for Champions League group stage football given Scottish clubs struggles in that competition the last few years.

Given the way Sevco are run I think it's likely that's exactly what they have done!

It might not be so much the fact the might go into admin, although it’s possible but they may run into FFP problems before that. Their losses over the last three years far exceeded what FFP allows. A win last night would have fixed that. They will now have to drastically cut costs to avoid a suspension from Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/ffp-newcos-loss-and-huge-consequences/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Celtic blog, so take with a pinch of salt but the figures are posted by Sevco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A Hi-Bee]

**** der hun

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/ffp-newcos-loss-and-huge-consequences/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Celtic blog, so take with a pinch of salt but the figures are posted by Sevco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure he's entirely correct.

If the reporting period is up until the end of last season, last night is irrelevant. If they have broken the rules, they have broken the rules.

That said, they do have to stem losses for this season to avoid the same problem this time next year. And, if the latest accounts result in no European football next season, they will have to budget for that.

Share issue incoming....

[PatHead]

Did they have much success with their last share issue?

[CropleyWasGod]

Did they have much success with their last share issue?

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.

[Ozyhibby]

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.

Have they not used up all the wiggle room a share issue gives them in FFP? Thought they could only allow £25m over the three years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Have they not used up all the wiggle room a share issue gives them in FFP? Thought they could only allow £25m over the three years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might be right. I've lost track of them all.

[O'Rourke3]

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.Was that not the Fit and proper trying to move on his bad debt rather than more new shares?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Pete70]

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.

Is that not roughly the amount yon The Rangers boy just won in a court case. Coincidence?

[PatHead]

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.

Thanks for looking. I am sure that if they had we would have heard about it.

[BoomtownHibees]

Can't find any info, I'm afraid.

They were trying to raise £6.75m, but there's no news on how successful they were. The issue was closed on 17 July.

They had to raise that for their new Edmiston House I believe

[Hibernia&Alba]

What's this about those lunatics charging 25 grand for media access, and are now reduced to a couple of fan outlets at press conferences, including those bigoted maniacs at Follow Follow? I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's true. :confused:

[bod]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;6652321]What's this about those lunatics charging 25 grand for media access, and are now reduced to a couple of fan outlets at press conferences, including those bigoted maniacs at Follow Follow? I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's true. :confused:[/QUOTE
Not saw reports that anyone has paid it yet
I’d no be happy if that’s where my telly license money’s went

[Billy Whizz]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;6652321]What's this about those lunatics charging 25 grand for media access, and are now reduced to a couple of fan outlets at press conferences, including those bigoted maniacs at Follow Follow? I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's true. :confused:[/QUOTE
Not saw reports that anyone has paid it yet
I’d no be happy if that’s where my telly license money’s went

BBC still doing interviews via phone with opposing managers

[truehibernian]

[QUOTE=bod;6652327]

BBC still doing interviews via phone with opposing managers

The less media coverage The Rangers get the better s far as I'm concerned :aok: the Cinch nonsense is a nonsense - happy to play in the Betfred Cup yet have a huge deal with 32Red :cb didn't cite any conflict of interest there :wink:

Saw the Beeb have had Mark Hately and Charlie Adam doing punditry recently on their games.........Lurch and Uncle Fester spring to mind :greengrin

[Lendo]

What's this about those lunatics charging 25 grand for media access, and are now reduced to a couple of fan outlets at press conferences, including those bigoted maniacs at Follow Follow? I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's true. :confused:

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/journalists-slam-football-clubs-reported-25k-press-access-charge/

Article for anyone that isn’t familiar

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/journalists-slam-football-clubs-reported-25k-press-access-charge/

Article for anyone that isn’t familiar

What's their motivation here? It could be purely financial, but is there more to it? Such a restriction could prevent difficult questions being asked of the club. Are they giving in to the mob once again, with many Sevco fans believing the media are colluding against them? I think it's a dangerous move.

[mixumatosis]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/six-football-teams-exclusively-supported-by-twats-20210811211044

Fair to assume the mash won't be stumping up for a media partnership package.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Would the media play The Rangers at their own game and lock them out? They should should keep coverage limited to match reports, for the benefit of fans of the opposition. Don't cover any other Rangers stories e.g. transfers, but blank them. Then again, that might be just what The Rangers want: it would mean no coverage of their financial woes and their repugnant supporters. They really are a disgusting organisation. Press conferences with just fan sites FFS.

"Next question at the post match press conference comes from our other media partner, Follow Follow."

"Hawl, Stevie, wee man, whit dae ye hink aboot the anti-Christ in Rome, The Battle of the Boyne, an ra anti-Rangers SNP? Gies The Sash, Stevie."

[ancient hibee]

Is that not roughly the amount yon The Rangers boy just won in a court case. Coincidence?

In what way. That they failed to raise it and that we as tax payers now have to pay for the Crown Office debacle:greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Would the media play The Rangers at their own game and lock them out. They should should keep coverage limited to match reports, for the benefit of fans of the opposition. Don't cover any other Rangers stories e.g. transfers, but blank them. Then again, that might be just what The Rangers want: it would mean no coverage of their financial woes and their repugnant supporters. They really are a disgusting organisation. Press conferences with just fan sites FFS.

"Next question at the post match press conference comes from our other media partner, Follow Follow."

"Hawl, Stevie, wee man, whit dae ye hink aboot the anti-Christ in Rome, The Battle of the Boyne, an ra anti-Rangers SNP? Gies The Sash, Stevie."

Mail carried a para today saying no photos from Ibrox as the club won't allow their photographers in.Times and Sunday Times has said over the last couple of weeks that match reports at Ibrox are written without their reporters attending the match. The BBC has refused to go to Ibrox until Rangers lift the ban on one of their journalists. A strange way to carry on. Beginning of another financial breakdown?

[PatHead]

Can we not add this to the old megathread? Getting entertaining again.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Mail carried a para today saying no photos from Ibrox as the club won't allow their photographers in.Times and Sunday Times has said over the last couple of weeks that match reports at Ibrox are written without their reporters attending the match. The BBC has refused to go to Ibrox until Rangers lift the ban on one of their journalists. A strange way to carry on. Beginning of another financial breakdown?

It's very bizarre. A club of crackpots.

[Lendo]

Mail carried a para today saying no photos from Ibrox as the club won't allow their photographers in.Times and Sunday Times has said over the last couple of weeks that match reports at Ibrox are written without their reporters attending the match. The BBC has refused to go to Ibrox until Rangers lift the ban on one of their journalists. A strange way to carry on. Beginning of another financial breakdown?

Bizarre behaviour. The only way I wan categorise their supporters is to liken them to Trump voters. They all genuinely believe that they are the persecuted minority.

[Brummie_Hibs]

Hibs.net should do the same.

No build up chat, no match day thread, no press stories and no This is How it Feels.

[Northernhibee]

Hibs.net should do the same.

No build up chat, no match day thread, no press stories and no This is How it Feels.

You have to pay £5k for Haymaker to post :hyper in response to transfer rumours.

[truehibernian]

What's their motivation here? It could be purely financial, but is there more to it? Such a restriction could prevent difficult questions being asked of the club. Are they giving in to the mob once again, with many Sevco fans believing the media are colluding against them? I think it's a dangerous move.

As Keegan, Keevins (strangely) and Tomasson said, they need the cash and the title has gone to their head. Complete delusions of grandeur and think they are bigger than they are. They are also - in my opinion - trying to become the 'muscle' in Scottish football capitalising on the current situation at Celtic. It's been a nightmare for them having to watch Celtic and Lawell be the major players in our league.

Whatever way you look at it. and same applied to Celtic, both are non-entities in European football and have been well overtaken by not only the 'big boys' down south, but many many clubs around Europe.

If Celtic manage to re-establish themselves this season, Gerrard will leave and The Rangers will implode again in my opinion.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/six-football-teams-exclusively-supported-by-twats-20210811211044


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Torto7]

They will go flat out to try and win the league this year due to the automatic group stage money up for grabs. If Celtic win the league then the implosion will follow from there and it will be quite the fall. If the demented bigots had just been humble(aye right) and built their new club up gradually then they would be in much better shape. Hubris and their rage at Celtic will ultimately cause them to collapse again.

[EdinburghHibern]

No Champions League money and must be a hefty wage bill they have.

Saw a post on Twitter questioning where all the money is going,along the lines of 100k shirt sales,45k season tickets and hospitality tickets.

[Bristolhibby]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/six-football-teams-exclusively-supported-by-twats-20210811211044

Fair to assume the mash won't be stumping up for a media partnership package.

Haha

Rangers

Definitely the more repellent half of the Old Firm rivalry, perhaps because they’ve no Pope of Rome to provide spiritual guidance. In a movie going into administration and rising back up the ranks would be a journey that made the team and their fans better people. In real life? No.

[hibbysam]

They will go flat out to try and win the league this year due to the automatic group stage money up for grabs. If Celtic win the league then the implosion will follow from there and it will be quite the fall. If the demented bigots had just been humble(aye right) and built their new club up gradually then they would be in much better shape. Hubris and their rage at Celtic will ultimately cause them to collapse again.

This was brought up on here last week, there was a lot of noise about it last year which I took as gospel, but the relevant sites which show country coefficient show Scotland’s champions will enter the play off spot, not group stage?

Or is it based on the expectation that one of the top nations clubs who have already qualified will win the champions league and Scotland will get their spot?

[jacomo]

No Champions League money and must be a hefty wage bill they have.

Saw a post on Twitter questioning where all the money is going,along the lines of 100k shirt sales,45k season tickets and hospitality tickets.


The directors sitting on the board will be wanting it back, because they’ve been funding that loss making club for years.

[ballengeich]

This was brought up on here last week, there was a lot of noise about it last year which I took as gospel, but the relevant sites which show country coefficient show Scotland’s champions will enter the play off spot, not group stage?

Or is it based on the expectation that one of the top nations clubs who have already qualified will win the champions league and Scotland will get their spot?
It looks that way to me. Scotland finished last season in 11th position. Turkey had been 11th at the end of the 19-20 season so Besiktas got directly into this season's CL since holders Chelsea had also qualified through their league position.

[Haymaker]

You have to pay £5k for Haymaker to post :hyper in response to transfer rumours.

:hyper

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19509483.amp/


The SMSM are not happy with the restricted access to the Rangers.

[007]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19509483.amp/


The SMSM are not happy with the restricted access to the Rangers.

Good, I hope they declare war on Rangers. They can start with some honest and open journalism on the topic of sectarianism and then move on to Rangers' finances.

[Kato]

Good, I hope they declare war on Rangers. They can start with some honest and open journalism on the topic of sectarianism and then move on to Rangers' finances.You would think that would be a given. I doubt it'll happen though.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19509483.amp/


The SMSM are not happy with the restricted access to the Rangers.


That’s pretty gentle criticism if you ask me. The Rangers will shrug it off.

If the media coverage were more hostile they might change their ways. This charge for access - and their refusal to honour commitments made to the league’s sponsor - represent a real threat to the media… I’m surprised they aren’t reacting more strongly tbh.

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532553.rangers-accuse-spfl-antagonistic-approach-douglas-park-clinches-court-win-cinch-row/

Not sure where this leaves the cinch sponsorship deal

[Eyrie]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19532553.rangers-accuse-spfl-antagonistic-approach-douglas-park-clinches-court-win-cinch-row/

Not sure where this leaves the cinch sponsorship deal

Where it always was - in place until such time as Sevco provide evidence of their alleged pre-existing contract.

Meanwhile I noticed Dundee had a motor sponsor on the back of their jerseys yesterday. That's a higher profile location than Sevco's carefully "hidden" sponsor, but Dundee haven't objected to the cinch deal.

[The Count]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.

[H18 SFR]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.

Totally agree with this.

[hibbydad]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.
I agree with this too

[tamig]

The old hun were horrible but the 2012 reincarnation are poisonous. They should have still been working their way through the leagues now.

[007]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.

If Rangers continue with this, which I think they will, then I'd like to see other clubs speak up, particularly if they cause the Cinch deal to be scrapped. The very least they should be doing is, as you suggest, boycotting Park's.

[JimBHibees]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.

Because they will have signed contracts to do so. Should make them think about options when contract to be renewed though.

[Phil MaGlass]

Because they will have signed contracts to do so. Should make them think about options when contract to be renewed though.

They can still put pressure on them by threatening not to use them in the future.

[CentreLine]

Are we likely to see this whole ****show referred to UEFA? Is that the next step where a club takes the home authority to court? Or is it different because Parks are a company flexing their muscle as they have an “agreement” with a club?

[Caversham Green]

Where it always was - in place until such time as Sevco provide evidence of their alleged pre-existing contract.

Meanwhile I noticed Dundee had a motor sponsor on the back of their jerseys yesterday. That's a higher profile location than Sevco's carefully "hidden" sponsor, but Dundee haven't objected to the cinch deal.

As I understand the rules it's not about conflicting ads, it's about having a clause in a contract that prohibits displaying a conflicting ad. If Dundee's contract with their sponsor stipulated that they couldn't carry any other motor industry related advertising then Dundee would have a case for refusing to wear the Cinch logo.

I suspect that a contract between Sevco and Parks which predates the Cinch deal is in the process of being drawn up now.

BTW am I wrong to be starting Cinch with an upper case letter? I've seen the lower case being used in a lot of places including the SPFL statements.

[tamig]

As I understand the rules it's not about conflicting ads, it's about having a clause in a contract that prohibits displaying a conflicting ad. If Dundee's contract with their sponsor stipulated that they couldn't carry any other motor industry related advertising then Dundee would have a case for refusing to wear the Cinch logo.

I suspect that a contract between Sevco and Parks which predates the Cinch deal is in the process of being drawn up now.

BTW am I wrong to be starting Cinch with an upper case letter? I've seen the lower case being used in a lot of places including the SPFL statements.

Their branding is a lower case “c” in the name.

[nonshinyfinish]

BTW am I wrong to be starting Cinch with an upper case letter? I've seen the lower case being used in a lot of places including the SPFL statements.

Their branding is with a lower case c.

SPFL stuff (obviously) will follow that to keep them happy, as will some media.

It is purely a branding thing though – if you look at the legal stuff down the bottom of their website you'll find "Cinch Cars Limited is…" – so you're not wrong.

[JimBHibees]

They can still put pressure on them by threatening not to use them in the future.

Agree.

[O'Rourke3]

I suspect that a contract between Sevco and Parks which predates the Cinch deal is in the process of being drawn up now.


Probably, but bringing it to a meeting about a month back would sort out any dubiety. Any contract now on display has to stink to high heaven.I'd guess any lawyer pre dating the contact could get into difficulties of their own

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

Probably, but bringing it to a meeting about a month back would sort out any dubiety. Any contract now on display has to stink to high heaven.I'd guess any lawyer pre dating the contact could get into difficulties of their own

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Sevco need to be careful about the date on the contract with Parks because if the date is changed from 2021 to 2011, it'll be before the club was formed.

[Peevemor]

Do not understand how clubs can continue to give money to Parks of Hamilton when the owner is endangering the Cinch deal to settle old scores.At the sane time not giving a stuff about your smaller Scottish clubs that need that money to survive.Surely there are other coach companies that clubs can use.Parks will have high spec/luxury coaches that are used almost exclusively for football teams and they'll always have coaches available.

Another company in Edinburgh (for example) might have 2 or 3 high spec buses but they have to take bookings for them where possible as they have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy them.

Match dates are changed frequently for television, postponements, etc. and cup ties and replays can crop up at very short notice.

The chances are that each club will have their regular drivers - they also have to be available.

I doubt many firms will be able to guarantee suitable coaches at the drop of a hat.

Parks have obviously geared themselves up to be capable of providing such a service.

I used to organise 15-20 (high spec) coach hires per year, ranging from a few hours to going abroad for 7-10 days. A good, friendly, regular relationship with a firm is priceless.

It's not as easy as just changing coach company to make a point.

[04Sauzee]

BREAKING: Rangers fans raised £4.5m in supporter share offering - more than £2m short of stated target

https://t.co/kXFe74fj1m https://t.co/4Nf18JVRqc

[JohnM1875]

https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/1440684651010428948?s=19

What an embarrassment of a football club 😂

[bod]

Couldn’t make it up

[JeMeSouviens]

https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/1440684651010428948?s=19

What an embarrassment of a football club 😂


a court hears from a QC that the club was in negotiations with Cinch about selling off naming rights to Ibrox, in June

Surely in newspeak, that's "the company that owns the club". They don't even try half the time. :rolleyes:

[gbhibby]

Here we go again. I think they were relying on champions league money so this will make up the shortfall. Could nae beat ten men.

[007]

https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/1440684651010428948?s=19

What an embarrassment of a football club ��

So all their guff about not displaying any of the SPFL banners etc with cinch on it is actually because they've taken the huff because the Ibrox naming rights sale to cinch didn't happen.

The contract between Rangers and Parks is heavily redacted. They say it's because of sensitive commercial info in it. Aye right. More likely it's because it will prove they've been telling porkies.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-held-talks-rename-stadium-25046101

[jacomo]

So all their guff about not displaying any of the SPFL banners etc with cinch on it is actually because they've taken the huff because the Ibrox naming rights sale to cinch didn't happen.

The contract between Rangers and Parks is heavily redacted. They say it's because of sensitive commercial info in it. Aye right. More likely it's because it will prove they've been telling porkies.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-held-talks-rename-stadium-25046101


The Rangers are now claiming they signed the contract with Parks in May, yet were apparently negotiating with cinch over stadium naming rights in June?

Presumably the club announced the Parks deal in May? I imagine it would have been a proud moment for Park as a director of both companies and he will have pushed for as much publicity as possible, no?

What absolute liars they are.

[007]

The Rangers are now claiming they signed the contract with Parks in May, yet were apparently negotiating with cinch over stadium naming rights in June?

Presumably the club announced the Parks deal in May? I imagine it would have been a proud moment for Park as a director of both companies and he will have pushed for as much publicity as possible, no?

What absolute liars they are.

The SPFL/ cinch deal was announced on 10th June so Rangers had to say (lie) that their deal with Parks was before that and now they've been found out to have then been negotiating with cinch a month later. Hilarious stuff. Hope they get hammered in the pocket for it.

[jacomo]

The SPFL/ cinch deal was announced on 10th June so Rangers had to say (lie) that their deal with Parks was before that and now they've been found out to have then been negotiating with cinch a month later. Hilarious stuff. Hope they get hammered in the pocket for it.


They appear to be trying to deceive the court. Please please let’s expunge them from the league this time.

[LunasBoots]

Rangers are at it, they've conned people before and they are still at it, time for people at the top to wake up instead of allowing it.

[Kato]

Did Douglas Park not sponsor Hamilton Accies old ground?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[brog]

Rangers are at it, they've conned people before and they are still at it, time for people at the top to wake up instead of allowing it.


Unfortunately the people at the top know it and condone it!

[007]

Unfortunately the people at the top know it and condone it!

Then why are they so desperate to get rid of Doncaster?

[ian cruise]

The SPFL/ cinch deal was announced on 10th June so Rangers had to say (lie) that their deal with Parks was before that and now they've been found out to have then been negotiating with cinch a month later. Hilarious stuff. Hope they get hammered in the pocket for it.

What on earth happened with this dispute? Last I read (via here) The Rangers were caught fibbing about contracts as the tried to sell stadium rights to Cinch after the SPFL deal was done.

Is it still ongoing, are they still refusing to acknowledge the league sponsor on their kit or in the stadium?

[Moulin Yarns]

What on earth happened with this dispute? Last I read (via here) The Rangers were caught fibbing about contracts as the tried to sell stadium rights to Cinch after the SPFL deal was done.

Is it still ongoing, are they still refusing to acknowledge the league sponsor on their kit or in the stadium?

Probably nothing will happen. All results where they refuse to wear the sponsors logo should be expunged IMHO 😉

[Billy Whizz]

What on earth happened with this dispute? Last I read (via here) The Rangers were caught fibbing about contracts as the tried to sell stadium rights to Cinch after the SPFL deal was done.

Is it still ongoing, are they still refusing to acknowledge the league sponsor on their kit or in the stadium?

Court case is on 20th October

[007]

Court case is on 20th October

Can't wait. Hope they lose and get the book thrown at them.