Sevco at it again

[neil7908]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-stance-cinch-sparks-fears-24671856

Now jeopardising a multiple million pound sponsorship deal for the league as it conflicts with their owners business interests.

[matty_f]

They’re weirdos.

[Since90+2]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-stance-cinch-sparks-fears-24671856

Now jeopardising a multiple million pound sponsorship deal for the league as it conflicts with their owners business interests.

How is that even allowed? They are aware of the rules of the competition. They should be forced to forfeit matches until they agree to display the leagues sponsors.

[Victor]

Threaten them with a ban from the SPFL, if they do not conform. They should not be allowed to get away with nonsense like this. I wonder how much negotiation there would be if it were Dundee or St.Mirren, who were refusing to comply?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Heisenberg]

They’re weirdos.

They’ve always got to have something that whips their hordes up into a frenzy. Always got to be a battle on with someone or something off the football park. As you say, absolute weirdos.

[hibbysam]

I can see it from both sides to be fair. If the league haven’t made their obligations water tight then Rangers would be well within their rights not to threaten the legality of their own sponsorships. It does seem petty but there will be legal implications all over the place. Beggars can’t be choosers but would’ve thought the SPFL would’ve discussed conflicts of interest prior to signing any deals.

[AugustaHibs]

To be fair the sponsorship deal is absolutely awful anyway. It’s worth about £2000 a week to each club..

[Since452]

Just exclude Rangers* from any sponsorship or prize money. Job done.

[Irish_Steve]

They (and Celtic) fed off sectarianism to appease their fans - the sooner the bugger off, the better

[blaikie]

Does Douglas Park not own a few fairly high end dealerships rather than your run of the mill run around that the sponsor seems to deal in?

Just trying to flex their muscles with the SPFL .. wasn’t that long ago we had the whistleblower evidence debacle from that lot!

Financial penalty, point deduction then expulsion!

[hibbysam]

To be fair the sponsorship deal is absolutely awful anyway. It’s worth about £2000 a week to each club..

It’s nowhere near that amount is it? Thought it was £8m over 5 years, with 42 clubs to be split between. Can’t see all 42 clubs getting £100k per year from it. Could be wrong though.

[Jim44]

To be fair the sponsorship deal is absolutely awful anyway. It’s worth about £2000 a week to each club..


It’s nowhere near that amount is it? Thought it was £8m over 5 years, with 42 clubs to be split between. Can’t see all 42 clubs getting £100k per year from it. Could be wrong though.

This is irrelevant and clouds the issue. The issue here is Sevco’s behaviour.

[jacomo]

They (and Celtic) fed off sectarianism to appease their fans - the sooner the bugger off, the better


Even if they played in the English leagues we’d never be rid of them.

It would just mean the SPFL would be diminished in stature even more.

[PatHead]

This has just reminded me to never buy a car from Parks of Hamilton.

[Mr. Wonderful]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-stance-cinch-sparks-fears-24671856

Now jeopardising a multiple million pound sponsorship deal for the league as it conflicts with their owners business interests.

This time last year we were led to believe they had the integrity and improvement of the spfl at the forefront of their mind. Now they're jeapordising a sponsorship deal it took us long enough to agree.

Couldn't write it.

[neil7908]

To be fair the sponsorship deal is absolutely awful anyway. It’s worth about £2000 a week to each club..

Not sure that's how it works but even if it does, to clubs in the bottom tier £100k over a year is sizable chunk of the money for them. A

If course its nothing to Sevco, hence why they are happy to play this game.

[neil7908]

This time last year we were led to believe they had the integrity and improvement of the spfl at the forefront of their mind. Now they're jeapordising a sponsorship deal it took us long enough to agree.

Couldn't write it.

I honestly think they are one of the most detestable clubs in the world. What really grates me though is that the rest of Scottish football meekly puts up with it.

As another posters said, does anyone think St Mirren, Ross County etc could get away with this this?

[Peevemor]

I honestly think they are one of the most detestable clubs in the world. What really grates me though is that the rest of Scottish football meekly puts up with it.

As another posters said, does anyone think St Mirren, Ross County etc could get away with this this?



And with the temperature rising league chairman Murdoch MacLennan wrote to all clubs to confirm that the dispute is being treated as a matter of urgency.


MacLennan’s letter says: “Dear all. You will all be aware that earlier this summer, the SPFL signed a title sponsorship contract with cinch...

...“It is therefore very disappointing that one of our clubs has not felt able to deliver inventory to cinch.


“Your Board will be discussing this situation later this week. I will of course be in touch thereafter to give you a further update.”



The chairman has written to all the clubs and the board is going to discuss it this week.

I'm not sure what else you expect from "the rest of Scottish football"" in the first instance.

[Hibs Class]

I can see it from both sides to be fair. If the league haven’t made their obligations water tight then Rangers would be well within their rights not to threaten the legality of their own sponsorships. It does seem petty but there will be legal implications all over the place. Beggars can’t be choosers but would’ve thought the SPFL would’ve discussed conflicts of interest prior to signing any deals.

They didn't seem too bothered about sponsorship by Ladbrokes or William Hill despite 32Red being shirt sponsors. You can hardly blame SPFL for not questioning the possibility of individual board members' self-interest.

[hibbysam]

I honestly think they are one of the most detestable clubs in the world. What really grates me though is that the rest of Scottish football meekly puts up with it.

As another posters said, does anyone think St Mirren, Ross County etc could get away with this this?

If there’s nothing illegal about it why wouldn’t they get away with it? Would you be happy with Hibs potentially reneging on club sponsorship contracts worth far more than this just to appease the SPFL who have failed to make their contracts with clubs watertight?

[RyeSloan]

Weird story that the SPFL are in discussions with the sponsor!

Urmm the discussions should be with Rangers reminding them of their contractual obligations to the league.

I mean not even the SPFL can have conditions of entry into their league that allow member clubs to pick and choose wether they meet the league sponsorship requirements…surely…

[hibbysam]

They didn't seem to bothered about sponsorship by Ladbrokes or William Hill despite 32Red being shirt sponsors. You can hardly blame SPFL for not questioning the possibility of individual board members' self-interest.

Of course it’s self interest. If there’s nothing compulsory about it though then they’re doing nothing wrong, of course this’ll come out in due course but it’s a massive cock up by the SPFL if that’s the case.

[nonshinyfinish]

If there’s nothing illegal about it why wouldn’t they get away with it? Would you be happy with Hibs potentially reneging on club sponsorship contracts worth far more than this just to appease the SPFL who have failed to make their contracts with clubs watertight?

Is there a club sponsorship involved? From reading the article it sounds like the chairman just doesn't want to promote a competitor to his own business, unrelated to Sevco.

[Peevemor]

Weird story that the SPFL are in discussions with the sponsor!

Urmm the discussions should be with Rangers reminding them of their contractual obligations to the league.

I mean not even the SPFL can have conditions of entry into their league that allow member clubs to pick and choose wether they meet the league sponsorship requirements…surely…

The sponsor has a deal with the SPFL so it's the SPFL that has to explain itself to the sponsor.

Obviously they also have to try to bring the huns into line.

[MyJo]

Theres a very easy solution to this.

if any club chooses not to participate with the sponsorship requirements of the league they play in then they don’t play in that league. Simples

but that wont be happening and they will accomodate this farce and bend over backwards to sort something out that keeps the huns face straight

[Bristolhibby]

Pathetic from the Huns as per.

You are in the SPFL. Sponsors of said leagues are entitled to real estate on your shirt (the Gold thing on your arms). Irrelevant what it’s advertising as it’s part of playing in the league.

J

[Peevemor]

Of course it’s self interest. If there’s nothing compulsory about it though then they’re doing nothing wrong, of course this’ll come out in due course but it’s a massive cock up by the SPFL if that’s the case.

That's how it reads to me - probably some slack wording that leaves room for interpretation.

[Peevemor]

Theres a very easy solution to this.

if any club chooses not to participate with the sponsorship requirements of the league they play in then they don’t play in that league. Simples

but that wont be happening and they will accomodate this farce and bend over backwards to sort something out that keeps the huns face straight

That'd be nice, but sponsors want a league which includes the huns.

[Since90+2]

That's how it reads to me - probably some slack wording that leaves room for interpretation.

I'd not be believing a word that comes out the boardroom at Sevco.

[hibbysam]

Is there a club sponsorship involved? From reading the article it sounds like the chairman just doesn't want to promote a competitor to his own business, unrelated to Sevco.

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

[neil7908]

The chairman has written to all the clubs and the board is going to discuss it this week.

I'm not sure what else you expect from "the rest of Scottish football"" in the first instance.

Fine if it was the first instance. But they constantly causing problems for Scottish football and, imo, bringing our game into disrepute.

And there is no attempt to say enough is enough. They are laughing at the rest of us whilst we bend over trying to accommodate them.

Let's see what happens here but I suspect this will all get ironed out in their favour, without any reprimand or penalty for their actions on Saturday, and the negative publicity its brought to our game.

I wonder what other potential sponsors are thinking about this?

[007]

Surely them signing up as members of the SPFL means they have to accept any sponsors that are arranged.

Dock them points and fine them now and put them on notice that if they do it again they'll be kicked out.

[Pretty Boy]

Rangers behaviour is poor but I actually can see the general point they are making.

A serious 'influencer' on Instagram can make in the region of £1000 for posting a picture from a restaurant, they can receive considerably more than that in travel perks for promoting an airline, hotel chain etc. I know someone who is flogging a dodgy diet drink who is clearing about £600 a week from social media and she doesn't have anything like the reach of some of the big names. Yet football clubs in Scotland are giving over pitchside advertising, sleeve patches, airtime on Sky/BBC/Instagram/Twitter for between £1000 and £2000 per game. All things considered I would argue the bigger clubs (and I include Hibs in that) have every right to be upset if that infringes on their potential to attract better commercial deals elsewhere. Obviously the leagues are a members organisation and as such each club has to take a share of the responsibility for the quality of the deals we can attract.

I understand the benefits of having all the leagues under one banner and organisation. However one of the drawbacks is when it comes to negotiating sponsorship and commercial partnerships. Whats is a great deal for Albion Rovers or Edinburgh City isn't necessarily a good deal for Celtic, Hibs and Aberdeen.

[WhileTheChief..]

This could cause huge damage to the league.

How are any future partners going to feel about dealing with the SPFL when any individual club can just look for loopholes to exploit for their own benefit? It's hardly in the spirit of things is it.

The other club chairmen should be on the phone to Ibrox telling them to grow up and get in line.

If I was cinch, I'd walk away now. I'd never heard of them before the SPFL deal so job done anyways.

[Jim44]

Is there a club sponsorship involved? From reading the article it sounds like the chairman just doesn't want to promote a competitor to his own business, unrelated to Sevco.

This is clearly Park’s taking the huff. None of the official sponsors in the Rangers partnership is compromised by the SPFL Cinch deal. It’s self interest and self importance.

[Logie Green]

Even if they played in the English leagues we’d never be rid of them.

It would just mean the SPFL would be diminished in stature even more.

We’d never be rid of them as we’d have their Colts teams to contend with which is why the arrangement should not continue beyond this season as per the agreement.

The last thing Scottish football needs is two versions of the pair of them.

[hibbysam]

We’d never be rid of them as we’d have their Colts teams to contend with which is why the arrangement should not continue beyond this season as per the agreement.

The last thing Scottish football needs is two versions of the pair of them.

Agreement was only this year due to them expecting to get into league 2. No doubt about it the LL clubs will be bribed into accepting them next year again!

[The Count]

When there are many coach companies struggling during this pandemic why do we use Parks of Hamilton.Apart from the owner being an out and out Hun surely Hibs should be supporting a local coach company.Does not sit comfortable with me giving him our money.

[Greenbeard]

When there are many coach companies struggling during this pandemic why do we use Parks of Hamilton.Apart from the owner being an out and out Hun surely Hibs should be supporting a local coach company.Does not sit comfortable with me giving him our money.
As should every other club in the leagues.
You would think non-compliance would be covered in some way in whatever participation agreement clubs sign.
1st offence - fine based on the club's turnover and put on notice that failure to comply within a specified timeframe (2 weeks?) will result in the deduction of points.
2nd offence - 3 point deduction and put on notice that failure to comply within a specified timeframe (2 weeks?) will result in further deduction of points.
3rd offence - an additional 10 point deduction and put on notice that failure to comply within a specified timeframe (2 weeks?) will result in expulsion from the league.
4th offence. Yer oot. (Again.)

[Smartie]

When there are many coach companies struggling during this pandemic why do we use Parks of Hamilton.Apart from the owner being an out and out Hun surely Hibs should be supporting a local coach company.Does not sit comfortable with me giving him our money.

The huns should really be cold-shouldered on every level by our club (up to others whether they want to do business with them).

When you appease them you empower them and I’m uncomfortable with the attitude our club has regarding doing business with Rangers.

They’ve still not full recovered financially so make up for it with appalling behaviour. I’d not be surprised if they tried to stiff us for one of our better players before the transfer window was out.

It all still makes it hard to take them seriously - and there might actually be a half-decent point to be made by them here.

You just can’t trust a club with their track record or the people they have involved there.

[mcohibs]

This could cause huge damage to the league.

How are any future partners going to feel about dealing with the SPFL when any individual club can just look for loopholes to exploit for their own benefit? It's hardly in the spirit of things is it.

The other club chairmen should be on the phone to Ibrox telling them to grow up and get in line.

If I was cinch, I'd walk away now. I'd never heard of them before the SPFL deal so job done anyways.

Dangerous precedent to set if the SPFL are indeed negotiating with Sevco on this.

However, the other club chairs shouldn't be expected to do anything here. The responsibility lies with the SPFL to sort it - it is literally their job. There shouldn't have been any loopholes in the deal in the first place.

[Peevemor]

The huns should really be cold-shouldered on every by our club (up to others whether they want to do business with them).

When you appease them you empower them and I’m uncomfortable with the attitude our club has regarding doing business with Rangers.

They’ve still not full recovered financially so make up for it with appalling behaviour. I’d not be surprised if they tried to stiff us for one of our better players before the transfer window was out.

It all still makes it hard to take them seriously - and there might actually be a half-decent point to be made by them here.

You just can’t trust a club with their track record or the people they have involved there.

I agree that the huns are being dicks. Whether they have a legal right to do what they're doing, loopholes shouldn't come into it and they're definitely going against the spirit of SPFL membership.

However, what can a club like Hibs or any other realistically do to "cold shoulder" them? Whatever we do to them they'll just do to us in return.

This is for the SPFL board and executive to sort out.

[BegbieHSC]

This has just reminded me to never buy a car from Parks of Hamilton.

Several clubs hire their buses for away games, including us. Maybe the club should look for an alternative/buy and brand our own.

[Since452]

Ahh so that's why Rangers didn't collect their losers medals in the 2016 cup final. It was the William Hill Scottish Cup and they were sponsored by 32Red. They are touchy about these things.

[Logie Green]

Agreement was only this year due to them expecting to get into league 2. No doubt about it the LL clubs will be bribed into accepting them next year again!

Given some of the usual behaviour by their ‘supporters’ so far at LL games I’m not certain they will be welcomed next season though as you say money talks.

They’ll probably just up the amount from this season.

[EI255]

It's what weird clubs do

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

Several clubs hire their buses for away games, including us. Maybe the club should look for an alternative/buy and brand our own.There aren't many coach companies around who can guarantee the standard of service, coach and above all availability/flexibility that clubs like Hibs require.

Changing wouldn't be easy at all.

[hibbysam]

Given some of the usual behaviour by their ‘supporters’ so far at LL games I’m not certain they will be welcomed next season though as you say money talks.

They’ll probably just up the amount from this season.

100%. Clubs showed this year (bar a couple) that all they are interested in is money.

[The Count]

Ahh so that's why Rangers didn't collect their losers medals in the 2016 cup final. It was the William Hill Scottish Cup and they were sponsored by 32Red. They are touchy about these things.

They must of forgot that William Hill was a black and tan in his youth !!!

[BegbieHSC]

There aren't many coach companies around who can guarantee the standard of service, coach and above all availability/flexibility that clubs like Hibs require.

Changing wouldn't be easy at all.

Fair,

I know Aberdeen have their own branded coach, which would be nice to see us have, although I appreciate that would likely cost c.£200k up front, as well as hiring a driver once a fortnight.

Still - I’m not a big fan of us effectively giving money to Douglas Park and Sevco for coach travel - especially after this nonsense.

[allezsauzee]

If The Rangers aren't happy with the conditions of playing in the SPFL then they are free to beat it. Honestly, they win 1 major trophy and all of a sudden they think they make the rules.

[Billy Whizz]

Fair,

I know Aberdeen have their own branded coach, which would be nice to see us have, although I appreciate that would likely cost c.£200k up front, as well as hiring a driver once a fortnight.

Still - I’m not a big fan of us effectively giving money to Douglas Park and Sevco for coach travel - especially after this nonsense.

Do Aberdeen own this, it is it just a branded vehicle from a local company?

[Moulin Yarns]

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

I sullied my eyes by checking their website. No mention of an official sponsorship. Agreed that they probably get free coaches.


My solution, 100k fine suspended for the first offence, doubling each offence, league games only. 700k by the beginning of September. 😁

[hibbysam]

I sullied my eyes by checking their website. No mention of an official sponsorship. Agreed that they probably get free coaches.


My solution, 100k fine suspended for the first offence, doubling each offence, league games only. 700k by the beginning of September. 😁

League taken to court, no grounds for fines, an even worse image than we had before and even more difficult for us to get investment in future. If there are loopholes the league should be on their hands and knees apologising to the company and putting rules in place to stop it in future.

[The Count]

Put it this way if a good Hibby owned a major coach company would the Huns use his coaches??
The whole way they have acted for ever and particularly recently is a disgrace and i personally i dont want any my small financual contribution helping to fund them.

[mjhibby]

They’ve always got to have something that whips their hordes up into a frenzy. Always got to be a battle on with someone or something off the football park. As you say, absolute weirdos.

Exactly. I just don’t take any notice of anything about the bigot bros. They certainly don’t frequent my universe.

[Moulin Yarns]

League taken to court, no grounds for fines, an even worse image than we had before and even more difficult for us to get investment in future. If there are loopholes the league should be on their hands and knees apologising to the company and putting rules in place to stop it in future.

I would hope that the spfl has a watertight contract and good lawyers. Bringing the game into disrepute is a fineable offence.

The spfl collectively are the clubs, if any one steps out of line then they should pay for it. Points deducted is not a relevant sanction for this.

[hibbysam]

I would hope that the spfl has a watertight contract and good lawyers. Bringing the game into disrepute is a fineable offence.

The spfl collectively are the clubs, if any one steps out of line then they should pay for it. Points deducted is not a relevant sanction for this.

You would hope, however it’s the SPFL and I’ve very little confidence in that.

[Since452]

Rangers football club are exactly the same as the people who follow them. Always absolutely livid about something or someone. Doncaster, SFA, SPFL, Nicola Sturgeon, Irvine Welsh, Michael Stewart, Ryan Porteous. Absolute freaks.

[Moulin Yarns]

To further put the situation beyond doubt.


SPFL rules G46. Shirts to bear logos.

If so determined by the board, the shirts of players in league matches and play off matches shall bear the logo of the league and/or sponsor on one or both sleeves as specified by the board.


A simple resolution by the board and the upstarts have to comply. 😉

[jacomo]

If there’s nothing illegal about it why wouldn’t they get away with it? Would you be happy with Hibs potentially reneging on club sponsorship contracts worth far more than this just to appease the SPFL who have failed to make their contracts with clubs watertight?


Cinch have made a huge splash in the sponsorship market and are big players. I refuse to believe that they would have signed the deal or handed over any money without lawyers satisfying themselves that all elements of the sponsorship were contractually watertight.

Personally i think the Rangers are at it. As usual. The director probably just wants to drum up some business for his s****y used car business.

[jacomo]

Fine if it was the first instance. But they constantly causing problems for Scottish football and, imo, bringing our game into disrepute.

And there is no attempt to say enough is enough. They are laughing at the rest of us whilst we bend over trying to accommodate them.

Let's see what happens here but I suspect this will all get ironed out in their favour, without any reprimand or penalty for their actions on Saturday, and the negative publicity its brought to our game.

I wonder what other potential sponsors are thinking about this?


This is awful re: potential sponsors. Ron Gordon will be raging.

[Radium]

To further put the situation beyond doubt.


SPFL rules G46. Shirts to bear logos.

If so determined by the board, the shirts of players in league matches and play off matches shall bear the logo of the league and/or sponsor on one or both sleeves as specified by the board.


A simple resolution by the board and the upstarts have to comply. [emoji6]

Not sure that they will have a problem with bear logos … [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Cinch have made a huge splash in the sponsorship market and are big players. I refuse to believe that they would have signed the deal or handed over any money without lawyers satisfying themselves that all elements of the sponsorship were contractually watertight.

Personally i think the Rangers are at it. As usual. The director probably just wants to drum up some business for his s****y used car business.

That thought did occur to me as well.

Is this just a ploy to get some free publicity for his business?

Or is this just another chapter in appeasing their rabid favourite base?

[Iain G]

I honestly think they are one of the most detestable clubs in the world. What really grates me though is that the rest of Scottish football meekly puts up with it.

As another posters said, does anyone think St Mirren, Ross County etc could get away with this this?

I don't think the motorised horseless carriage has caught in in Dingwall yet to be fair :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

I don't think the motorised horseless carriage has caught in in Dingwall yet to be fair :greengrin

Still a one horse town. 😉

[jacomo]

That thought did occur to me as well.

Is this just a ploy to get some free publicity for his business?

Or is this just another chapter in appeasing their rabid favourite base?


Probably a bit of both. Rage and hatred is their business model after all.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Park has got some under the table freebies and benefits from being on the board, which he now feels are threatened by the cinch deal.

[WhileTheChief..]

This is awful re: potential sponsors. Ron Gordon will be raging.

Exactly.

He must be thinking what a bunch of small minded *****.

How thick must the folk at Rangers be if they didn't consider how cinch would react? If they did consider it then that's even worse. And for what? What do Rangers or Parks possibly gain from this.

Greg McEwan talks about our sponsors as partners and developing relationships with them. This is the complete opposite. Rangers have just stuck 2 fingers up at the most lucrative sponsors the league has ever had.

The guys at cinch but be going mad thinking who have we got involved with.

The whole thing stinks.

[Billy Whizz]

I know there’s a new SPFL aboard for this season, can’t remember if the cinch deal was sanctioned/proposed by the current or last board

Board for 2021/22 season

cinch Premiership: Ron Gordon (Hibernian), James MacDonald (Ross County), Stewart Robertson (Rangers)

cinch Championship: Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Ross McArthur (Dunfermline Athletic)

cinch League 1 and League 2: Alastair Donald (Forfar Athletic), Alternate director - Paul Hetherington (Airdrieonians

[Spike Mandela]

The day the SPFL rolled over and never sanctioned Rangers over their blatant EBT cheating and authorities compiled their failure to act by whitewashing it all via Nimmo Smith those of a Rangers persuasion were emboldened..

Rangers know they can act with impunity on any matter and Scottish football authorities will be complicit in their actions. We just have to live with it, we all sat back and accepted it.

[jacomo]

The day the SPFL rolled over and never sanctioned Rangers over their blatant EBT cheating and authorities compiled their failure to act by whitewashing it all via Nimmo Smith those of a Rangers persuasion were emboldened..

Rangers know they can act with impunity on any matter and Scottish football authorities will be complicit in their actions. We just have to live with it, we all sat back and accepted it.


:agree:

Appeasement never works. Should have never let them straight back into the league.

[CraigHibee]

huns taking the huff as saggy jowls owns a car sales company, offended by everything ashamed of nothing

[WhileTheChief..]

I know there’s a new SPFL aboard for this season, can’t remember if the cinch deal was sanctioned/proposed by the current or last board

Board for 2021/22 season

cinch Premiership: Ron Gordon (Hibernian), James MacDonald (Ross County), Stewart Robertson (Rangers)

cinch Championship: Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Ross McArthur (Dunfermline Athletic)

cinch League 1 and League 2: Alastair Donald (Forfar Athletic), Alternate director - Paul Hetherington (Airdrieonians

I take this just happened in the close season?

Any idea how the board members are chosen?

Surprised RG is in there so quickly, feels like a hiding to nothing.

[Moulin Yarns]

👏 Good luck to @RangersFC, who play Malmö FF in the 1st leg of their #UCL QR3 tie tonight (6:00pm kick-off).

RT if you're backing the Gers! https://t.co/V1ZFsFB6M9


Help. I need some support.

[SJNB Hibby]

Not sure that they will have a problem with bear logos … [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:aok:

[Eyrie]

Let's turn this into a positive for Scottish football.

The appropriate punishment for Sevco is to kick them out of the league and then, to avoid any accusations of sectarianism, kick out their other half Celtc as well.

[Northernhibee]

Let's turn this into a positive for Scottish football.

The appropriate punishment for Sevco is to kick them out of the league and then, to avoid any accusations of sectarianism, kick out their other half Celtc as well.

Defo need to demote Hearts too.

[60yearahibby]

Let's turn this into a positive for Scottish football.

The appropriate punishment for Sevco is to kick them out of the league and then, to avoid any accusations of sectarianism, kick out their other half Celtc as well.

Some Tory MSP writing in today's Scotsman that the Scottish Government are anti rangers. Good enough reason to vote SNP then.

[Moulin Yarns]

Some Tory MSP writing in today's Scotsman that the Scottish Government are anti rangers. Good enough reason to vote SNP then.

When you say ' some tory MSP' do you mean Murdo or Annie? 🤔😉

[CentreLine]

When you say ' some tory MSP' do you mean Murdo or Annie? 🤔😉

Aye Murdo Fraser.
What he really means is he wants all The Rangers fans to have a problem with the Scottish government. The Union rules you know.

[Moulin Yarns]

Aye Murdo Fraser.
What he really means is he wants all The Rangers fans to have a problem with the Scottish government. The Union rules you know.

Aye, I found it online. To think that moron is one of my MSPs in mid scotland and fife.

[Alex Trager]

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.”

[Moulin Yarns]

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.”

I kept seeing that as 17 but it is letter I7

So, quoting I7


I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.


I21 Except where a Club agrees in writing to license or otherwise provide to the Company such of its rights, facilities and properties as shall be specified in and on the terms set out in such written agreement, the Clubs and each of them shall not be required to license or otherwise provide to the Company the use of any of their or its rights, facilities and properties to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil the Company’s obligations under and in terms of Limited Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.




What the SPFL rules say about the Sponsors identification


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.

I think Rangers have to tell us what the conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations is. It isn't with Parks as there is no official sponsorship on the website. Tomket Tires are sleeve sponsors.

[hibsbollah]

Kick them out, but make them start in the west of Scotland league this time, do it properly.

[Billy Whizz]

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.”

Using an agency is a par for the course in sponsorship
Hibs use an agency for their deals too

[Smartie]

Surely there will have plenty of conflicts in the past - bookies on shirts (we won the William Hill Scottish Cup with Marathon Bet on our shirts, did we not?) and also sponsoring the league - Dafabet (?!?!) sponsoring Celtic when they won the Ladbrokes Premiership etc?

Is this only now an issue because of Douglas Park and Sevco?

Seems strange that it should only be an issue now.

[Inconsequential]

I don't think the motorised horseless carriage has caught in in Dingwall yet to be fair :greengrin What a crass and condescending remark. I assume it was supposed to be funny. For your information the north of Scotland does have motor cars, roads too! This enables Southerners in their droves to travel to the north of Scotland currently. Maybe you should too, get enlightened. Rather be in Dingwall than the big smoke any day of the week.

[WeeRussell]

What a crass and condescending remark. I assume it was supposed to be funny. For your information the north of Scotland does have motor cars, roads too! This enables Southerners in their droves to travel to the north of Scotland currently. Maybe you should too, get enlightened. Rather be in Dingwall than the big smoke any day of the week.

I’m maybe missing that you’re not being serious, but that’s a bit of an overreaction is it not?

[007]

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.”

Stinks of Rangers just trying to get rid of Doncaster so he can be replaced with someone who is more Rangers friendly. If this is the approach Stewart Robertson is taking then it seems to me his position on the SPFL board is a conflict of interest and he should resign. Similar to the situation the season before last when all their shenanigans were going on with the dossier that proved nothing. He was on the SPFL board then as well and should have resigned from it, if he had any sort of integrity, but didn't.

Can't believe they're still getting their knickers in a twist over that season (rightly) being curtailed and Celtic getting the title. They stopped the 10 in a row so should just grow up and get on with it.

[Billy Whizz]

Stinks of Rangers just trying to get rid of Doncaster so he can be replaced with someone who is more Rangers friendly. If this is the approach Stewart Robertson is taking then it seems to me his position on the SPFL board is a conflict of interest and he should resign. Similar to the situation the season before last when all their shenanigans were going on with the dossier that proved nothing. He was on the SPFL board then as well and should have resigned from it but didn't.

Can't believe they're still getting their knickers in a twist over that season (rightly) being curtailed and Celtic getting the title. They stopped the 10 in a row so should just grow up and get on with it.

Hibs have Macklin motors as a sponsor, doesn’t seem to have made us object

[Ozyhibby]

The day the SPFL rolled over and never sanctioned Rangers over their blatant EBT cheating and authorities compiled their failure to act by whitewashing it all via Nimmo Smith those of a Rangers persuasion were emboldened..

Rangers know they can act with impunity on any matter and Scottish football authorities will be complicit in their actions. We just have to live with it, we all sat back and accepted it.

And the other Scottish clubs, ours included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Hibs have Macklin motors as a sponsor, doesn’t seem to have made us object

I'll say it again. Parks of Hamilton are not mentioned on the website as a commercial sponsor. If they want to go down that road then they should take the spfl to court. 😉

[Billy Whizz]

I'll say it again. Parks of Hamilton are not mentioned on the website as a commercial sponsor. If they want to go down that road then they should take the spfl to court. 😉

Fair enough

[speedy_gonzales]

Surely there will have plenty of conflicts in the past - bookies on shirts (we won the William Hill Scottish Cup with Marathon Bet on our shirts, did we not?) and also sponsoring the league - Dafabet (?!?!) sponsoring Celtic when they won the Ladbrokes Premiership etc?

Is this only now an issue because of Douglas Park and Sevco?

Seems strange that it should only be an issue now.

Sevco themselves were sponsored by RED32 when the Ladbrokes sponsored the league,,,, no complaints or contractual issues raised then?!?

[HoboHarry]

Hope the other clubs sue Sevco for damages if the sponsorship deal falls through. Self entitled bunch of w******s.

[Torto7]

Aye, I found it online. To think that moron is one of my MSPs in mid scotland and fife.

Why did the Scotsman allow him to write this? Its pretty clear that the Tory party are prepared to use sectarianism as they do in Northern Ireland.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sevco themselves were sponsored by RED32 when the Ladbrokes sponsored the league,,,, no complaints or contractual issues raised then?!?

A hun on twitter told me that they are the same parent company. No idea if it's true.

[Funkydunc]

A hun on twitter told me that they are the same parent company. No idea if it's true.

He’s talking pish.

[Rumble de Thump]

Ladbrokes in owned by Entain in the Isle of Man. 32Red is owned by Kindred in Malta.

Insterestgly, Stewart Robertson said in his statement that it was the SPFL that have made this matter public. It was actually Sevco that made it public by so obviously not fullfilling their duties. It was obvious enough for the media to pick up on it. It's very difficult to believe or trust anything the Sevco management say.

[JohnMcM]

Ladbrokes in owend by Entain in the Isle of Man. 32Red is owned by Kindred in Malta.

Insterestgly, Stewart Robertson said in his statement that it was the SPFL that have made this matter public. It was actually Sevco that made it public by so obviously not fullfilling their duties. It was obvious enough for the media to pick up on it. It's very difficult to believe or trust anything the Sevco management say.

It’s been that way ever since their former entity died and beyond. Much the same as our pink neighbours in the submarine commander’s administration days and during the restructuring attempts to avoid relegation, although they didn’t actually die.
:rolleyes:

[Eyrie]

For further proof that Fraser is a liar, he wrote this -


When Mo Johnston was signed by Graeme Souness in 1989, becoming the first openly Catholic player for Rangers since World War One, he was welcomed with open arms by Rangers fans.

Really? I remember Huns burning their season tickets on camera in protest.

[CropleyWasGod]

For further proof that Fraser is a liar, he wrote this -



Really? I remember Huns burning their season tickets on camera in protest.

He obviously doesn't remember John Spencer :rolleyes:

[degenerated]

Why did the Scotsman allow him to write this? Its pretty clear that the Tory party are prepared to use sectarianism as they do in Northern Ireland.Hardly a new thing Ruth Davidson had been playing to that element since 2014.

[neil7908]

Why did the Scotsman allow him to write this? Its pretty clear that the Tory party are prepared to use sectarianism as they do in Northern Ireland.

That was absolutely shocking and should never have been published. He might as well have signed off with 'We r the peepl'

[calumhibee1]

Charlie Adam thinks Rangers should be given more of the sponsorship money to keep them happy.

This is the captain of one of the clubs that would be adversely impacted :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

That was absolutely shocking and should never have been published. He might as well have signed off with 'We r the peepl'

He probably did, and that was a step too far for the editor.

[The Count]

I just despair about that club and its supporters.

[Carheenlea]

https://youtu.be/2rf4BIXJ8_g


For further proof that Fraser is a liar, he wrote this -



Really? I remember Huns burning their season tickets on camera in protest.

Can hardly see what’s going on in the video with all the open arms.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Charlie Adam thinks Rangers should be given more of the sponsorship money to keep them happy.

This is the captain of one of the clubs that would be adversely impacted :rolleyes:


talking of conflict of interests should former OF players be pontificating on public broadcasters on such matters? If that would mean they’d be left with nothing to say even better. Tapping / talking up players on the OF behalf gives me the boak. It’s not like it’s even a level playing field across the teams. A lot that’s wrong with scottish football. And the media simply reinforce it pathetic.

[Moulin Yarns]

Anyways, there is apparently an SPFL board meeting today, hope the Cinch deal is watertight and that the Rangers haven't got a leg to stand on. Is it likely that they have a commercial contract with park's of Hamilton but they don't actually appear as a sponsor?

[Bristolhibby]

talking of conflict of interests should former OF players be pontificating on public broadcasters on such matters? If that would mean they’d be left with nothing to say even better. Tapping / talking up players on the OF behalf gives me the boak. It’s not like it’s even a level playing field across the teams. A lot that’s wrong with scottish football. And the media simply reinforce it pathetic.

I would be gagging ex OF players who played for Hibs. Bang out of line. He’s drawing a salary from Dundee FFS!

J

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I just despair about that club and its supporters.


“don’t worry Donny - these men are cowards”


https://youtu.be/1M6oW6a0iAw

[Lendo]

https://youtu.be/2rf4BIXJ8_g



Can hardly see what’s going on in the video with all the open arms.


That might be the most depressing video I have ever watched.

[Geo_1875]

Charlie Adam thinks Rangers should be given more of the sponsorship money to keep them happy.

This is the captain of one of the clubs that would be adversely impacted :rolleyes:

He didn't actually say that in the article. The headline is down to the editor.

[JDT]

Apologies if this has been covered already but I came across this on reddit and thought I'd share.

"£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful."

[Eyrie]

Apologies if this has been covered already but I came across this on reddit and thought I'd share.

"£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful."

I'd be very surprised if it works out at £70-80k per team. That would mean teams in Division Two getting the same as the Ugly Sisters, and despite my loathing of them, I accept that they are the main attraction for sponsors due to the size of their unpleasant fan bases.

I'd think instead that the sponsorship money goes into the overall prize post so the teams that finish in the top two places of the Premiership will get far more than teams in lower leagues.

And if individual clubs are able to negotiate far better deals for themselves, then it's a pity they're not lending that expertise to help bring in more money to all the clubs.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apologies if this has been covered already but I came across this on reddit and thought I'd share.

"£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful."

The Rangers, and even hibs could probably afford to lose that money, but what about Forfar, East Fife, Kelty Hearts? That money will be a lifesaver for the small clubs, this is for the benefit of all Scottish football not just the top clubs.

If rangers don't want to comply then they forfeit their share of the sponsorship money.

[Moulin Yarns]

And rangers are quoting I7 that's Aye seven, not 17 ( seventeen), Janis would be raging

[HoboHarry]

The Rangers, and even hibs could probably afford to lose that money, but what about Forfar, East Fife, Kelty Hearts? That money will be a lifesaver for the small clubs, this is for the benefit of all Scottish football not just the top clubs.

If rangers don't want to comply then they forfeit their share of the sponsorship money.
The sponsors wouldn't agree to that I would imagine. Better that all the other clubs sue Sevco for damages if the deal falls through....

[StevieC]

The Rangers, and even hibs could probably afford to lose that money, but what about Forfar, East Fife, Kelty Hearts? That money will be a lifesaver for the small clubs, this is for the benefit of all Scottish football not just the top clubs.


I was just about to say exactly the same thing. 👍



If rangers don't want to comply then they forfeit their share of the sponsorship money.

I disagree with this, I think that they should be made to comply with consequences if they don’t. As your first statement points out, it’s not a huge amount of money for the bigger clubs, and The Rangers could easily take a hit on their sponsorship share in order to get their way.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was just about to say exactly the same thing. 👍



I disagree with this, I think that they should be made to comply with consequences if they don’t. As your first statement points out, it’s not a huge amount of money for the bigger clubs, and The Rangers could easily take a hit on their sponsorship share in order to get their way.

On the 2nd bit, I agree and earlier proposed a fine of say £100k suspended, for the first offence, double for each subsequent offence. That's £700k by the end of the month

[hibbysam]

On the 2nd bit, I agree and earlier proposed a fine of say £100k suspended, for the first offence, double for each subsequent offence. That's £700k by the end of the month

And if, as they say they have, a contract that conflicts with this then you can’t fine them at all. So it’s all pointless. If they could’ve been punished then they would’ve been, fact the SPFL are away begging to the sponsor tells me they’re doing nothing wrong.

[Moulin Yarns]

And if, as they say they have, a contract that conflicts with this then you can’t fine them at all. So it’s all pointless. If they could’ve been punished then they would’ve been, fact the SPFL are away begging to the sponsor tells me they’re doing nothing wrong.

Do you know which sponsor for rangers is the one that is at issue?

It has never been mentioned.

[Rumble de Thump]

If they do have a contract that conflicts with the league sponsorship then Sevco have some explaining to do with regards to why they signed a deal that had the potential conflict.

[Moulin Yarns]

If they do have a contract that conflicts with the league sponsorship then Sevco have some explaining to do with regards to why they signed a deal that had the potential conflict.

They claimed it was a pre existing contract, but no one knows who it is with so all we can do is speculate.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.am-online.com/news/latest-news/2021/08/04/parks-motor-group-and-cinch-at-centre-of-8m-scottish-football-sponsorship-spat

I see that the motor industry is saying the spat is between Parks Motor Group and the spfl. 🤔

https://www.parks.uk.com/news/


The parks motor group sponsors a few rugby clubs through their dealers, but nothing about sponsorship of the Rangers.

[Rumble de Thump]

They claimed it was a pre existing contract, but no one knows who it is with so all we can do is speculate.

Yes, but even if they have signed such a contract, they shouldn't be signing deals that even have the potential to interfere with a league sponsorship deal. My opinion is that the people running Sevco are full of excrement.

[neil7908]

Yes, but even if they have signed such a contract, they shouldn't be signing deals that even have the potential to interfere with a league sponsorship deal. My opinion is that the people running Sevco are full of excrement.

Definitely. There has been no real detail by Sevco about what specific sponsor or contract is causing problems here. The Daily Record is saying they were asked for evidence by the SPFL but talks have ended with no resolution.

Clearly the owner is just annoyed that he has to advertise a rival. Its a great chance to do what they love best - disrupt and impoverish our game to feed their own victim mentality.

It sounds like we are close to losing this deal. If that happens there must be consequences.

[hibbysam]

Yes, but even if they have signed such a contract, they shouldn't be signing deals that even have the potential to interfere with a league sponsorship deal. My opinion is that the people running Sevco are full of excrement.

How could Rangers know what deals the SPFL would make in the future? That’s a seriously strange way of trying to blame them. Had they signed the contract since the announcement then they’d be wrong, but if they had a pre existing deal with a company then they are well within their rights to protect that and it’s up to the SPFL to do their due diligence with their biggest clubs.

[hibbysam]

Do you know which sponsor for rangers is the one that is at issue?

It has never been mentioned.

Not a clue, like I say though if it wasn’t in place the SPFL would simply punish them. They haven’t though and that tells me they know they’ve made an arse of it and are now trying their best to apologise to the sponsor.

[jacomo]

Definitely. There has been no real detail by Sevco about what specific sponsor or contract is causing problems here. The Daily Record is saying they were asked for evidence by the SPFL but talks have ended with no resolution.

Clearly the owner is just annoyed that he has to advertise a rival. Its a great chance to do what they love best - disrupt and impoverish our game to feed their own victim mentality.

It sounds like we are close to losing this deal. If that happens there must be consequences.


:agree:

If it’s a choice between cinch and The Rangers, let’s relegate them and bring up a championship team in their place.

[Moulin Yarns]

How could Rangers know what deals the SPFL would make in the future? That’s a seriously strange way of trying to blame them. Had they signed the contract since the announcement then they’d be wrong, but if they had a pre existing deal with a company then they are well within their rights to protect that and it’s up to the SPFL to do their due diligence with their biggest clubs.


Look at the list of sponsors on the Rangers website and see if you can identify the company the deal is with. I certainly can't identify who it could be. The SPFL has always had their logo on the sleeves and the Rangers are only now refusing to wear it, what has changed?

[Future17]

How could Rangers know what deals the SPFL would make in the future? That’s a seriously strange way of trying to blame them. Had they signed the contract since the announcement then they’d be wrong, but if they had a pre existing deal with a company then they are well within their rights to protect that and it’s up to the SPFL to do their due diligence with their biggest clubs.

The point is that all sponsorship contracts signed by clubs should take into account that the club may require to display sponsorship of the competition sponsor, irrespective of whether the interests of the club sponsor and competition sponsor conflict. That doesn't require clubs to know what deals the SPFL may make in the future; it just requires the clubs not to sign deals promising exclusivity that they should know they can't guarantee.

Are you suggesting the SPFL should only agree sponsorship with a company whose interests don't conflict with any company which sponsor any SPFL club? I'd suggest that would be a miniscule list of potential sponsors.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/fears-spfl-sponsors-could-pull-out-of-ps8m-deal-amid-rangers-stand-off-3332290?amp

I now see the patch that the Rangers refuse to wear on the sleeve in the above article. Talk about mountains and molehills!!! You would need binoculars to read that during a game.

[Future17]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/fears-spfl-sponsors-could-pull-out-of-ps8m-deal-amid-rangers-stand-off-3332290?amp

I now see the patch that the Rangers refuse to wear on the sleeve in the above article. Talk about mountains and molehills!!! You would need binoculars to read that during a game.

True, but give them a Cinch and they'll take a mile.

[hibbysam]

Look at the list of sponsors on the Rangers website and see if you can identify the company the deal is with. I certainly can't identify who it could be. The SPFL has always had their logo on the sleeves and the Rangers are only now refusing to wear it, what has changed?

I’m not interested in what’s shown on a website, if they have a contract then they have one, if not then it’s easily resolved. You and others keep saying punish them, even if the rules don’t allow for that. That would be a mental way to run a league.

[neil7908]

I’m not interested in what’s shown on a website, if they have a contract then they have one, if not then it’s easily resolved. You and others keep saying punish them, even if the rules don’t allow for that. That would be a mental way to run a league.

If it was any other club I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. But given their behaviour in the last 10 years, I won't believe a word that comes from that club.

If they did have a clear contract then they'd just have to show the SPFL and it would be on them to deal with. The fact its rumbling on indicates to me they are at it.

[jacomo]

How could Rangers know what deals the SPFL would make in the future? That’s a seriously strange way of trying to blame them. Had they signed the contract since the announcement then they’d be wrong, but if they had a pre existing deal with a company then they are well within their rights to protect that and it’s up to the SPFL to do their due diligence with their biggest clubs.


Nope. The issue is about properties the SPFL can offer as part of a title sponsorship deal. Any club can have x number of commercial relationships themselves, but that’s almost irrelevant - if pitchside hoardings, sleeve logos etc are available as part of a title sponsor package then it really doesn’t matter what any individual club feels about it - they can discuss future availability of these properties through the usual channels available to them as member clubs.

As I said earlier, cinch have made a huge splash in the sponsorship market and will have engaged an army of lawyers to do the contracts. I simply refuse to believe they would have signed a deal with the SPFL unless they were assured all these opportunities were in place.

On the face of it, the Rangers are acting in bad faith. Let’s face it, they have form for this.

[Moulin Yarns]

I’m not interested in what’s shown on a website, if they have a contract then they have one, if not then it’s easily resolved. You and others keep saying punish them, even if the rules don’t allow for that. That would be a mental way to run a league.

All I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of the claim it conflicts with another commercial partner. I have doubts any exists as the commercial partner would surely want their own logos visible on shirts and the website. The fact that nothing appears suggests that they are at it.

I don't know what sanctions are available to the SPFL but the Rangers must not be seen to be sticking the finger up to the governing body. I would be of the same opinion regardless of what club was trying it on.

[hibbysam]

Nope. The issue is about properties the SPFL can offer as part of a title sponsorship deal. Any club can have x number of commercial relationships themselves, but that’s almost irrelevant - if pitchside hoardings, sleeve logos etc are available as part of a title sponsor package then it really doesn’t matter what any individual club feels about it - they can discuss future availability of these properties through the usual channels available to them as member clubs.

As I said earlier, cinch have made a huge splash in the sponsorship market and will have engaged an army of lawyers to do the contracts. I simply refuse to believe they would have signed a deal with the SPFL unless they were assured all these opportunities were in place.

On the face of it, the Rangers are acting in bad faith. Let’s face it, they have form for this.

If that was the case and they don’t matter, why does the SPFL have that rule in place allowing them not to IF they have existing contracts? The fact that rule is in place tells me the clubs wanted it and it gives Rangers an out, IF they have this contract.

[hibbysam]

All I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of the claim it conflicts with another commercial partner. I have doubts any exists as the commercial partner would surely want their own logos visible on shirts and the website. The fact that nothing appears suggests that they are at it.

I don't know what sanctions are available to the SPFL but the Rangers must not be seen to be sticking the finger up to the governing body. I would be of the same opinion regardless of what club was trying it on.

Sticking their fingers up is an option IF they have a contract in place. If they didn’t then it’s an easy scenario. Again, if they didn’t then I’d have expected action by now from the SPFL, the fact they haven’t and have went straight to the sponsor to grovel tells me that the SPFL have dropped the ball.

[WhileTheChief..]

How could Rangers know what deals the SPFL would make in the future? That’s a seriously strange way of trying to blame them. Had they signed the contract since the announcement then they’d be wrong, but if they had a pre existing deal with a company then they are well within their rights to protect that and it’s up to the SPFL to do their due diligence with their biggest clubs.

Stewart Robinson, the Ranger's Chief Exec, sits on the SPFL board.

He could have maybe mentioned it during discussions with cinch?

Ron Gordon is also on the board, did he screw up by not checking with Rangers to see if they would be happy with everything?

[Rumble de Thump]

Stewart Robinson, the Ranger's Chief Exec, sits on the SPFL board.

He could have maybe mentioned it during discussions with cinch?

His position on that board was untenable at the time Sevco were lying about their dossier of evidence. He should be long gone.

[ancient hibee]

Rangers have never said that the conflict is with one of their sponsors but with a contractual agreement.That could well be a contract with Parks to provide transport at a reduced rate provided no competitor is given publicity.

[hibbysam]

Stewart Robinson, the Ranger's Chief Exec, sits on the SPFL board.

He could have maybe mentioned it during discussions with cinch?

Ron Gordon is also on the board, did he screw up by not checking with Rangers to see if they would be happy with everything?

It’s clear the sponsorship relies on the biggest clubs, it’s seriously poor if the SPFL haven’t done their due diligence with said clubs. I’d be raging if a league contract for pittance had a bearing on a big club contract.

[Rumble de Thump]

It’s clear the sponsorship relies on the biggest club, it’s seriously poor if the SPFL haven’t done their due diligence with said clubs. I’d be raging if a league contract for pittance had a bearing on a big club contract.

Why would the SPFL have to do any kind of diligence? I think most people would be more annoyed if one club has a contract that has the potential to negatively impact every other club.

[WhileTheChief..]

It’s clear the sponsorship relies on the biggest clubs, it’s seriously poor if the SPFL haven’t done their due diligence with said clubs. I’d be raging if a league contract for pittance had a bearing on a big club contract.

But the SPFL has actual people running it, Stewart and Ron being two of them.

If they approved the cinch deal then surely they're the ones culpable?

Donald Park should be blaming his own Chief Exec if anybody. Ideally though, he'd grow up and back down.

If cinch back out it will be interesting to see if any member clubs can take action against Rangers? I mean, Hearts were able to take us all to court last year. Would the league have the balls to take Rangers there?!

[neil7908]

But the SPFL has actual people running it, Stewart and Ron being two of them.

If they approved the cinch deal then surely they're the ones culpable?

Donald Park should be blaming his own Chief Exec if anybody. Ideally though, he'd grow up and back down.

If cinch back out it will be interesting to see if any member clubs can take action against Rangers? I mean, Hearts were able to take us all to court last year. Would the league have the balls to take Rangers there?!

RE your last sentence - I think we know the answer to that.

[hibbysam]

Why would the SPFL have to do any kind of diligence? I think most people would be more annoyed if one club has a contract that has the potential to negatively impact every other club.

Because they’re signing a multi million pound deal that is reliant on their bigger clubs not using their own rules against them. Pretty clear really.

[hibbysam]

But the SPFL has actual people running it, Stewart and Ron being two of them.

If they approved the cinch deal then surely they're the ones culpable?

Donald Park should be blaming his own Chief Exec if anybody. Ideally though, he'd grow up and back down.

If cinch back out it will be interesting to see if any member clubs can take action against Rangers? I mean, Hearts were able to take us all to court last year. Would the league have the balls to take Rangers there?!

I’m fairly comfortable in thinking that Doncaster would’ve signed any deal to have a sponsorship this year, regardless of the impact of that, after the drubbing he took last year for not having one. The deal is a shambles.

[tamig]

Rangers have never said that the conflict is with one of their sponsors but with a contractual agreement.That could well be a contract with Parks to provide transport at a reduced rate provided no competitor is given publicity.

Is that not a matter between Parks and the hun then?

[Rumble de Thump]

Because they’re signing a multi million pound deal that is reliant on their bigger clubs not using their own rules against them. Pretty clear really.

Pretty clear and yet I have no idea what you're talking about :greengrin I'm surprised you're defending Sevco when they're so obviously in the wrong (as always).

[hibbysam]

Pretty clear and yet I have no idea what you're talking about :greengrin I'm surprised you're defending Sevco when they're so obviously in the wrong (as always).

If they have a contract then they aren’t in the wrong, they are following the SPFL’s rules. The fact the SPFL leave that door open is their issue and not an individual clubs. Would you be happy if Hibs potentially lost out on a huge sponsorship due to the SPFL getting a sponsor that’s worth next to nothing to us?

[SChibs]

Having seen the breakdown of the actual sponsorship, whoever voted to put that through should step down. I've lifted the below from the Scottish football subreddit.

Discussion

To put into context how crap the Cinch sponsorship, I'm going to break it down so everyone can realise how bad it is.

£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful

[007]

Having seen the breakdown of the actual sponsorship, whoever voted to put that through should step down. I've lifted the below from the Scottish football subreddit.

Discussion

To put into context how crap the Cinch sponsorship, I'm going to break it down so everyone can realise how bad it is.

£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful

Any chance you could go back and ask the Rangers fan, if it is the biggest ever sponsorship deal for the league (as has been reported) then why haven't Rangers taken this stance before now?

Maybe also put to him that the league might be a more attractive sponsorship proposition if it wasn't for the likes of Rangers fans and their sectarianism, their recent behaviour in George Square, their antics with their made up dossier and other shenanigans when the league was curtailed due covid along with all their other behaviour over the years. Ask him why Rangers obviously have a vendetta against Doncaster.

I wouldn't trust anything Rangers or their fans say, particularly when they try to make out that they are doing it for the benefit of Scottish football when clearly they are only ever looking out for themselves.

[lapsedhibee]

https://youtu.be/2rf4BIXJ8_g



Can hardly see what’s going on in the video with all the open arms.


That might be the most depressing video I have ever watched.

A learning experience for me. Had absolutely no idea that video cameras existed in the late 17th/early 18th century.

[tamig]

Any chance you could go back and ask the Rangers fan, if it is the biggest ever sponsorship deal for the league (as has been reported) then why haven't Rangers taken this stance before now?

Maybe also put to him that the league might be a more attractive sponsorship proposition if it wasn't for the likes of Rangers fans and their sectarianism, their recent behaviour in George Square, their antics with their made up dossier and other shenanigans when the league was curtailed due covid along with all their other behaviour over the years. Ask him why Rangers obviously have a vendetta against Doncaster.

I wouldn't trust anything Rangers or their fans say, particularly when they try to make out that they are doing it for the benefit of Scottish football when clearly they are only ever looking out for themselves.

That hun post is full of holes. No one club would be expecting to benefit more financially from a sponsorship deal covering the whole league than for individual deals they can broker for themselves. A daft argument. It's a deal a lot of lower league clubs will be absolutely delighted about as it will make a decent difference to them.

[SChibs]

Any chance you could go back and ask the Rangers fan, if it is the biggest ever sponsorship deal for the league (as has been reported) then why haven't Rangers taken this stance before now?

Maybe also put to him that the league might be a more attractive sponsorship proposition if it wasn't for the likes of Rangers fans and their sectarianism, their recent behaviour in George Square, their antics with their made up dossier and other shenanigans when the league was curtailed due covid along with all their other behaviour over the years. Ask him why Rangers obviously have a vendetta against Doncaster.

I wouldn't trust anything Rangers or their fans say, particularly when they try to make out that they are doing it for the benefit of Scottish football when clearly they are only ever looking out for themselves.

Not sure how familiar you are with the particular subreddit but the Rangers fans there are actually quite balanced and the vast majoity regularly condem the sectarian side their club.

Put it this way if Eden Mill were giving us £10k a match to put them on our sleeve but we had to remove that to put Cinch there for £5k do you not think Hibs would have something to say?

[Moulin Yarns]

Having seen the breakdown of the actual sponsorship, whoever voted to put that through should step down. I've lifted the below from the Scottish football subreddit.

Discussion

To put into context how crap the Cinch sponsorship, I'm going to break it down so everyone can realise how bad it is.

£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful

The whole thing has been posted before, but the bit I highlight needs examined, don't you think.

Rule I7 (not 17) is part of the Commercial, TV and Sponsorship and needs to be looked at in its entirety.


I Commercial, Broadcast and Sponsorship
Media Co-operation Requirements
I1 Clubs shall comply with the Media Co-Operation Requirements. We know they break that by refusing thee BBC access to Ibrox
Operating Expenses
I2 The operating expenses of the Company and the League shall be met, where possible, from Commercial Revenues.
I3 The Board shall from time to time be empowered, by levy or otherwise, to require Clubs to contribute such sum or sums of money to the funds of the Company as may be required for the business of the Company and the League and to meet any liability which the Company may assume. Any such levy or call for funds shall be contributed on such equitable basis as may be agreed by the Clubs in General Meeting failing such agreement, equally.
Commercial Contracts, Broadcasting and Transmission
I4 The Company shall in accordance with the Articles and these Rules enter into Commercial Contracts for the purpose of generating Commercial Revenues.
I5 Subject to these Rules, the Company shall seek to maximise Commercial Revenues.
I6 The Clubs and each of them agree to centrally pool and market their rights, facilities and properties relating to and concerning, Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches for exclusive exploitation by the Company of Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches.

I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company. Need some high power lawyer to explain what that actually means!

I8 Except in the case of Limited Commercial Contracts where Rule I21 shall apply, the Company shall be entitled for Commercial Contract purposes to sub-license, package or otherwise deal in or with any rights, facilities and properties licensed or otherwise provided to the Company by the Clubs and Candidate Clubs and each of them.


I21 Except where a Club agrees in writing to license or otherwise provide to the Company such of its rights, facilities and properties as shall be specified in and on the terms set out in such written agreement, the Clubs and each of them shall not be required to license or otherwise provide to the Company the use of any of their or its rights, facilities and properties to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil the Company’s obligations under and in terms of Limited Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.

However, there's more. This needs absolutely no explanation


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.

[SChibs]

That hun post is full of holes. No one club would be expecting to benefit more financially from a sponsorship deal covering the whole league than for individual deals they can broker for themselves. A daft argument. It's a deal a lot of lower league clubs will be absolutely delighted about as it will make a decent difference to them.

As far as I have seen the lower league clubs still have to use the sponsorship but they don't receive any money from doing so. Will try to dig out where I read that

[Rumble de Thump]

Rangers fans used to be repugnant and not care who knew it. Sevco fans and Sevco management are even more repugnant but are desperate to kid themselves on that it's not the case. A very creepy bunch.

[hibbysam]

The whole thing has been posted before, but the bit I highlight needs examined, don't you think.

Rule I7 (not 17) is part of the Commercial, TV and Sponsorship and needs to be looked at in its entirety.





However, there's more. This needs absolutely no explanation

They don’t refuse the BBC access, they refuse one journalist and the BBC took the huff at that. Huge difference.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not sure how familiar you are with the particular subreddit but the Rangers fans there are actually quite balanced and the vast majoity regularly condem the sectarian side their club.

Put it this way if Eden Mill were giving us £10k a match to put them on our sleeve but we had to remove that to put Cinch there for £5k do you not think Hibs would have something to say?

But that's comparing gin to cars, they don't mix!!

This is (apparently) all about Parks of Hamilton and his directorship of the Rangers and nothing about what sponsors patch goes where

[SChibs]

The whole thing has been posted before, but the bit I highlight needs examined, don't you think.

Rule I7 (not 17) is part of the Commercial, TV and Sponsorship and needs to be looked at in its entirety.





However, there's more. This needs absolutely no explanation

Does that not basically mean if a club makes a deal prior to the SPFL sponsorship deal they have the right to honour and not break the pre existing contract? I'm not a lawyer so it's all a bit hard to interpret.

[Moulin Yarns]

As far as I have seen the lower league clubs still have to use the sponsorship but they don't receive any money from doing so. Will try to dig out where I read that

Scroll right to the bottom and tell me Cinch are not putting money into the other leagues.

https://spfl.co.uk/pages/rules-and-regulations

[Moulin Yarns]

They don’t refuse the BBC access, they refuse one journalist and the BBC took the huff at that. Huge difference.

They refused a BBC journalist, that is breaking the rule I highlighted.

[007]

They don’t refuse the BBC access, they refuse one journalist and the BBC took the huff at that. Huge difference.

Was it not Rangers that took the huff because Chis Mclauchlin mentioned 2 Rangers fans were arrested for sectarian chants in a match v us so they banned him. The BBC quite rightly imo stand by him and don't send any reporters there as a result of the ban on him.

[hibbysam]

They refused a BBC journalist, that is breaking the rule I highlighted.

There was me thinking the BBC who own the rights (not the individual who has been banned) are still allowed in the stadium.

[hibbysam]

Was it not Rangers that took the huff because Chis Mclauchlin mentioned 2 Rangers fans were arrested for sectarian chants in a match v us so they banned him. The BBC quite rightly imo stand by him and don't send any reporters there as a result of the ban on him.

Of course they are, but again, they aren’t breaking any rules as the BBC are allowed in.

[Rumble de Thump]

Not sure how familiar you are with the particular subreddit but the Rangers fans there are actually quite balanced and the vast majoity regularly condem the sectarian side their club.

Put it this way if Eden Mill were giving us £10k a match to put them on our sleeve but we had to remove that to put Cinch there for £5k do you not think Hibs would have something to say?

Why would Hibs do that if it's space intended for a competition sponsor?

In any case, Sevco fans are very much invested in the club financially and emotionally. They all have to indulge in an unhealthy amount of wilful ignorance and delusion in order to support it due to what the club has been built, and continues to thrive, on - sectarianism, bigotry, hatred, lies, bullying, criminality, corruption etc.

[007]

Of course they are, but again, they aren’t breaking any rules as the BBC are allowed in.

I wasn't the one saying they were breaking any rules. I don't think they are in that particular instance. You said the BBC took the huff and I suggested it was actually Rangers who took the huff. You also said they refuse 1 journalist but they've also banned Graham Speirs, Jordan Campbell and Andy Walker and it wouldn't surprise me if there are more. I appreciate you were only referring to 1 BBC journalist being refused by my point is that they have a habit of taking the huff and banning people. It is a shame that they're not quite so quick to ban sectarianism.

[Moulin Yarns]

Of course they are, but again, they aren’t breaking any rules as the BBC are allowed in.

I can't believe that we are even discussing this.

If the BBC send said journalist to interview Gerrard at Ibrox will he be allowed in? If not then the Rangers are in breach of rule I1.

[hibbysam]

I can't believe that we are even discussing this.

If the BBC send said journalist to interview Gerrard at Ibrox will he be allowed in? If not then the Rangers are in breach of rule I1.

Have the BBC done this? So again, you are talking hypothetical situations and want them punished for something that hadn’t happened.

[hibbysam]

Why would Hibs do that if it's space intended for a competition sponsor?

In any case, Sevco fans are very much invested in the club financially and emotionally. They all have to indulge in an unhealthy amount of wilful ignorance and delusion in order to support it due to what the club has been built, and continues to thrive, on - sectarianism, bigotry, hatred, lies, bullying, criminality, corruption etc.

Why would Hibs take on sponsors? Should we have left a board empty last year just in case the SPFL got their finger out and sorted one? The point being though is conflicts of interest, it’s not so much a sponsor taking the SPFL board space, it’s the sponsor pulling out of a much more lucrative sponsorship due to us advertising their rival.

[SChibs]

Why would Hibs do that if it's space intended for a competition sponsor?

In any case, Sevco fans are very much invested in the club financially and emotionally. They all have to indulge in an unhealthy amount of wilful ignorance and delusion in order to support it due to what the club has been built, and continues to thrive, on - sectarianism, bigotry, hatred, lies, bullying, criminality, corruption etc.

Rangers found themselves a sleeve sponsor last year because the SPFL was unable to find a sponsor for the league. Why would they not sell that advertising space? More money coming into the club

[Hibs4185]

Why is Stewart Robertson allowed to sit on boards within the governing bodies and therefore prive to the details and then release statements on behalf of rangers criticising the deal and governing body.

Same with league reconstruction.

He should be emptied first and foremost. That’s the biggest conflict of interest going.

[Future17]

Have the BBC done this? So again, you are talking hypothetical situations and want them punished for something that hadn’t happened.

This is a great example of when a poster starts with a valid counter-view to the majority and then gets so entrenched that subsequent posts become ridiculous to the point of being nonsense. The fact, in this instance, it's in the context of defending Rangers makes it hard to comprehend.

[Keith_M]

Was it not Rangers that took the huff because Chis Mclauchlin mentioned 2 Rangers fans were arrested for sectarian chants in a match v us so they banned him. The BBC quite rightly imo stand by him and don't send any reporters there as a result of the ban on him.


:agree:


The Rangers are still in the huff because one guy dared to mention their sectarian fans and the BBC, quite rightly, are refusing to go along with their childish behaviour.

[jacomo]

It’s clear the sponsorship relies on the biggest clubs, it’s seriously poor if the SPFL haven’t done their due diligence with said clubs. I’d be raging if a league contract for pittance had a bearing on a big club contract.


To my mind this is irrelevant.

The logo placement, pitchside banners are either available as part of a title sponsor’s benefits, or they are not.

If there is a clause that allows individual clubs to opt out (I would find that bizarre) why didn’t that come to light earlier? Nothing to do with a lack of due diligence by the SPFL in my view.

What’s happened here, I think, is that Sevco management have signed off on the cinch deal, Donald Park has thrown his toys out the pram, and now Sevco are trying to blame everyone else. As usual.

[The_Sauz]

Stewart Robinson, the Ranger's Chief Exec, sits on the SPFL board.

He could have maybe mentioned it during discussions with cinch?

Ron Gordon is also on the board, did he screw up by not checking with Rangers to see if they would be happy with everything?
From what read the other day, he did tell the SPFL not to except the deal!
Not sure why, but why was it just "The Rangers" who were against it?
I think it's has nothing to do with "Contracts", but it has lots to do with Park's :agree: I have never once heard of a team within the UK refusing to ware a league sponsors badge on it's **** sleeve.

[jacomo]

Having seen the breakdown of the actual sponsorship, whoever voted to put that through should step down. I've lifted the below from the Scottish football subreddit.

Discussion

To put into context how crap the Cinch sponsorship, I'm going to break it down so everyone can realise how bad it is.

£8m over five years. £1.6m per year. £100k deductible per year for the Company who brought in Cinch. (£500k will go out of Scottish Football to pay a man who "found" Cinch) SPFL executive wages (deduction)

After deductions each team will make roughly £70k-80k per year, which roughly means per game they will earn £4k-5k

To put into context, Rangers currently earn £500k per year for having "Bitci" on the back of our shorts.

Cinch want shirt space, stadium space, press boards, name drops etc, for 5k a game?

I'm sure the likes of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc will have sponsorships that give them much more cash than this.

This is why Rangers have enacted Rule 17 of the SPFL to avoid devaluing standing sponsorships and contractual obligations.

If you support another team, just think for a minute - you're being shafted for pennies. And expected to be grateful


This is also irrelevant.

The only issue is whether the title sponsor is entitled to have their logo displayed by The Rangers as at every other club.

Whether or not you think the cinch deal offers fair value is by the by.

[Rumble de Thump]

Rangers found themselves a sleeve sponsor last year because the SPFL was unable to find a sponsor for the league. Why would they not sell that advertising space? More money coming into the club

Surely this is a different year from last year.

[hibbysam]

To my mind this is irrelevant.

The logo placement, pitchside banners are either available as part of a title sponsor’s benefits, or they are not.

If there is a clause that allows individual clubs to opt out (I would find that bizarre) why didn’t that come to light earlier? Nothing to do with a lack of due diligence by the SPFL in my view.

What’s happened here, I think, is that Sevco management have signed off on the cinch deal, Donald Park has thrown his toys out the pram, and now Sevco are trying to blame everyone else. As usual.

There is a clear rule that’s been posted in here numerous times that if they have an existing contract that would be affected by a new SPFL contract then they can essentially ‘opt out’.

[hibbysam]

This is a great example of when a poster starts with a valid counter-view to the majority and then gets so entrenched that subsequent posts become ridiculous to the point of being nonsense. The fact, in this instance, it's in the context of defending Rangers makes it hard to comprehend.

Wouldn’t matter which team it was, wanting clubs punished when they haven’t broken a rule is a dangerous road to go down. If the BBC really felt that they were being done out of broadcasting opportunities then they wouldn’t be continuing to put money into our game and allow Rangers to get away with it. Again, fact is Rangers won’t have broken any rules, just like both them and Celtic banning Walker isn’t suddenly going to mean they are breaking sky’s broadcasting rights.

[The_Sauz]

Not sure how familiar you are with the particular subreddit but the Rangers fans there are actually quite balanced and the vast majoity regularly condem the sectarian side their club.

Put it this way if Eden Mill were giving us £10k a match to put them on our sleeve but we had to remove that to put Cinch there for £5k do you not think Hibs would have something to say?
All the clubs know that the league sponsor patch goes on the sleeve, so why would the try and get one from another sponsor :confused:

[The_Sauz]

What the SPFFL should do is, let The Rangers go with out the league sponsors advertising and if they win the league, then they should hand the trophy to them in the dressing room (No fanfare) and divide the winners prize money to the rest of the league :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

cinch will be loving all the publicity that Rangers are giving them. 😏

[Future17]

Wouldn’t matter which team it was, wanting clubs punished when they haven’t broken a rule is a dangerous road to go down. If the BBC really felt that they were being done out of broadcasting opportunities then they wouldn’t be continuing to put money into our game and allow Rangers to get away with it. Again, fact is Rangers won’t have broken any rules, just like both them and Celtic banning Walker isn’t suddenly going to mean they are breaking sky’s broadcasting rights.

You've already admitted they've broken a rule; it's just the rule isn't being enforced as the relevant parties consider there is no practical benefit in doing so.

[007]

I see Rangers have been asked to provide proof that that the Cinch deal conflicts with their existing deal. That should only take them 5 minutes to prove but I can see this one going the same way as the smoking gun dossier. It'll be a load of made up claptrap.

Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if they've now got solicitors working on drafting up such a document which does show a conflict and they'll make out it was done months ago.

This is good free publicity for Cinch, they'll be getting plenty of column inches. They could just say they're happy to exclude Rangers as they don't was to be associated with a bunch of sectarian bassas.

[hibbysam]

You've already admitted they've broken a rule; it's just the rule isn't being enforced as the relevant parties consider there is no practical benefit in doing so.

Who admitted anything? If they had a pre existing contract then no rule has been broken. I’m starting to sound annoying to myself by repeating that so often.

[Future17]

Who admitted anything? If they had a pre existing contract then no rule has been broken. I’m starting to sound annoying to myself by repeating that so often.

Sorry, I mean in relation to the BBC.

[hibbysam]

Sorry, I mean in relation to the BBC.

That would depend on the ins and outs of the rules, but the fact a lot of clubs ban certain journalists and don’t get into bother for that then I’d say it’s above board as long as the company still has all the access they need. That’s all guesswork though as the rule that the poster put up was so vague.

[Eyrie]

There is a clear rule that’s been posted in here numerous times that if they have an existing contract that would be affected by a new SPFL contract then they can essentially ‘opt out’.

So why didn't Sevco object to the league being sponsored by Ladbrokes between 2016 and 2020 when they were sponsored by 32Red?

Instead they've waited until now to kick up a fuss about having a sponsor that no-one can find.

As the thread title points out, they're at it again.

[hibbysam]

So why didn't Sevco object to the league being sponsored by Ladbrokes between 2016 and 2020 when they were sponsored by 32Red?

Instead they've waited until now to kick up a fuss about having a sponsor that no-one can find.

As the thread title points out, they're at it again.

Is what they are doing against the rules? If they have an existing contract then no, therefore they can’t be punished. That’s the long and short of it, and it’s on the SPFL for that.

[007]

That would depend on the ins and outs of the rules, but the fact a lot of clubs ban certain journalists and don’t get into bother for that then I’d say it’s above board as long as the company still has all the access they need. That’s all guesswork though as the rule that the poster put up was so vague.

Page 111

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://spfl.co.uk/cms-content/images/shares/pdfs/Rules%2520and%2520Regulations%2520SPFL%25208_10_20 18.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL64WDlZ3yAhVcQkEAHebHCGsQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw0jwJkBkKfQjZ_LxGyrDTvc&cshid=1628279296675

Don't see anything they've breached, which is why I agreed earlier.

[Eyrie]

Is what they are doing against the rules? If they have an existing contract then no, therefore they can’t be punished. That’s the long and short of it, and it’s on the SPFL for that.

In the absence of any evidence being presented by Sevco the the SPFL, that's a big "IF".

And why has no-one else attempted to cite that rule if it overrides everything else? Such as any club sponsored by a bookmaker (eg Sevco, 32Red) when Ladbrokes sponsored the league?

And even IF that rule overrides everything else, why are Sevco only using it to protect Park and not a sponsorship contract with their club?

Your argument has more holes than the Celtc defence.

[hibbysam]

In the absence of any evidence being presented by Sevco the the SPFL, that's a big "IF".

And why has no-one else attempted to cite that rule if it overrides everything else? Such as any club sponsored by a bookmaker (eg Sevco, 32Red) when Ladbrokes sponsored the league?

And even IF that rule overrides everything else, why are Sevco only using it to protect Park and not a sponsorship contract with their club?

Your argument has more holes than the Celtc defence.

That’s their prerogative. All of it is completely irrelevant in this one off case. Fact is the original argument was that they should be punished - for not breaking rules. Rules that the SPFL themselves set. Would love to see the argument if they decided to relegate Hibs for doing nothing wrong 😂

[Moulin Yarns]

Rangers found themselves a sleeve sponsor last year because the SPFL was unable to find a sponsor for the league. Why would they not sell that advertising space? More money coming into the club

We have a sleeve sponsor as well, it doesn't stop us from also having the SPFL patch.

[Moulin Yarns]

Have the BBC done this? So again, you are talking hypothetical situations and want them punished for something that hadn’t happened.

You didn't answer the simple question. 🤔

[Moulin Yarns]

To my mind this is irrelevant.

The logo placement, pitchside banners are either available as part of a title sponsor’s benefits, or they are not.

If there is a clause that allows individual clubs to opt out (I would find that bizarre) why didn’t that come to light earlier? Nothing to do with a lack of due diligence by the SPFL in my view.

What’s happened here, I think, is that Sevco management have signed off on the cinch deal, Donald Park has thrown his toys out the pram, and now Sevco are trying to blame everyone else. As usual.

👍

[Moulin Yarns]

There is a clear rule that’s been posted in here numerous times that if they have an existing contract that would be affected by a new SPFL contract then they can essentially ‘opt out’.

You keep saying that, but where is the evidence? Who is this supposed contract with and for what?

There is also a clear rule, G46 if you want to look it up that says all clubs must wear the SPFL and league sponsor logos on the sleeve.

[hibbysam]

You keep saying that, but where is the evidence? Who is this supposed contract with and for what?

There is also a clear rule, G46 if you want to look it up that says all clubs must wear the SPFL and league sponsor logos on the sleeve.

That’s got nothing to do with me and completely down to the SPFL and Rangers. If there isn’t a contract it’ll be settled swiftly won’t it? And if there is the SPFL will continue to grovel to the sponsors.

[Eyrie]

That’s got nothing to do with me and completely down to the SPFL and Rangers. If there isn’t a contract it’ll be settled swiftly won’t it? And if there is the SPFL will continue to grovel to the sponsors.

If there is a contract, why didn't Sevco produce it? That would have settled it swiftly.

Their failure to do so tells you all you need to know, without getting into whether the loophole that Sevco claim to have found (and which no other club has ever noticed) can override the clear rule about teams having to wear a small patch for the league sponsors.

[hibbysam]

If there is a contract, why didn't Sevco produce it? That would have settled it swiftly.

Their failure to do so tells you all you need to know, without getting into whether the loophole that Sevco claim to have found (and which no other club has ever noticed) can override the clear rule about teams having to wear a small patch for the league sponsors.

Did the SPFL ask for it before going public? Unless I’ve missed it no one knows, and after that I’d be unwilling to comply straight away either.

[jacomo]

Is what they are doing against the rules? If they have an existing contract then no, therefore they can’t be punished. That’s the long and short of it, and it’s on the SPFL for that.


What they are doing is threatening the commercial viability of Scottish football because they’ve got an internal issue with a director. It’s selfish and sickening… yet again.

[jacomo]

Who admitted anything? If they had a pre existing contract then no rule has been broken. I’m starting to sound annoying to myself by repeating that so often.


Yes you keep saying this, but (even if this rule exists and can be applied here) their behaviour is indefensible imo.

I feel like you are being dragged down the legal rabbit hole that Sevco has created, whereas in fact the issue is very simple: does title sponsorship include the benefits that Sevco are denying cinch or not?

This is not the SPFL doing something to Sevco… Sevco is a member club and hold senior positions within the leadership of the SPFL. Imo they have f****d up by annoying one of their directors, but that should be their issue, not ours.

[hibbysam]

Yes you keep saying this, but (even if this rule exists and can be applied here) their behaviour is indefensible imo.

I feel like you are being dragged down the legal rabbit hole that Sevco has created, whereas in fact the issue is very simple: does title sponsorship include the benefits that Sevco are denying cinch or not?

This is not the SPFL doing something to Sevco… Sevco is a member club and hold senior positions within the leadership of the SPFL. Imo they have f****d up by annoying one of their directors, but that should be their issue, not ours.

I’m not happy with those in charge of our game underselling our game purely to satisfy their own failures from previous years. Our TV deal is shocking, our sponsorship deal is embarrassing. If this takes a stand against that then superb. Again, it doesn’t matter what club it is, it’s about time someone took a stand against the charlatans that run our game and started valuing it properly.

Cinch have won a watch with all this, they’re getting a ****load of sponsorship opportunities at 41 grounds in Scotland, and then this squabble, for next to nothing.

[CentreLine]

Yes you keep saying this, but (even if this rule exists and can be applied here) their behaviour is indefensible imo.

I feel like you are being dragged down the legal rabbit hole that Sevco has created, whereas in fact the issue is very simple: does title sponsorship include the benefits that Sevco are denying cinch or not?

This is not the SPFL doing something to Sevco… Sevco is a member club and hold senior positions within the leadership of the SPFL. Imo they have f****d up by annoying one of their directors, but that should be their issue, not ours.

For me this is simply a continuation of The The Rangers trying to settle a score they feel they have with SPFL and how badly they feel the old Rangers were treated on going bust. All in their own narrow minds. This will not be their last attempt to undermine the SPFL and Scottish football in general.

[Moulin Yarns]

Did the SPFL ask for it before going public? Unless I’ve missed it no one knows, and after that I’d be unwilling to comply straight away either.

Let's be honest. The SPFL didn't 'go public' it was evident when rangers didn't have the logo on the shirt, pitchside advertising and sponsor's player of the match. That was the first sign anything was up.

[Moulin Yarns]

I’m not happy with those in charge of our game underselling our game purely to satisfy their own failures from previous years. Our TV deal is shocking, our sponsorship deal is embarrassing. If this takes a stand against that then superb. Again, it doesn’t matter what club it is, it’s about time someone took a stand against the charlatans that run our game and started valuing it properly.

Cinch have won a watch with all this, they’re getting a ****load of sponsorship opportunities at 41 grounds in Scotland, and then this squabble, for next to nothing.

Wow!! Now it's clear why you are so supportive of the Rangers position in this, it's all a stick to beat the SPFL with.

I just wonder what better sponsorship deals you would have managed to negotiate in place of the SPFL.

[hibbysam]

Wow!! Now it's clear why you are so supportive of the Rangers position in this, it's all a stick to beat the SPFL with.

I just wonder what better sponsorship deals you would have managed to negotiate in place of the SPFL.

I’m not paid half a million a year, strangely enough. But other countries seem to manage far better with a far worse product and worldwide coverage.

[hibbysam]

Let's be honest. The SPFL didn't 'go public' it was evident when rangers didn't have the logo on the shirt, pitchside advertising and sponsor's player of the match. That was the first sign anything was up.

Doubt anyone really noticed, nobody would have said ‘oh Rangers dont have an advertisement board with ‘cinch’ on it. Nobody cares for the rules that much until it became public.

[SChibs]

All the clubs know that the league sponsor patch goes on the sleeve, so why would the try and get one from another sponsor :confused:

Because the league didn't have a sponsor at the time

[SChibs]

We have a sleeve sponsor as well, it doesn't stop us from also having the SPFL patch.

No buy if we had to remove a more lucrative sponsor so accommodate Cinch I'm sure Hibs would have something to say. It's irrelevant that Rangers chose not to do it with Ladbrokes (I suspect they didn't as Ladbrokes was a better deal than Cinch) because there's there's rule that allows them to opt out.

[Eyrie]

Doubt anyone really noticed, nobody would have said ‘oh Rangers dont have an advertisement board with ‘cinch’ on it. Nobody cares for the rules that much until it became public.

The first time that anyone knew that Sevco had created an issue was when they went public by not featuring the cinch logo. Rule G46 is very clear that they have to wear the league sponsor's logo. If Rule 17 can override that, then it was incumbent on Sevco to inform the SPFL of the conflict as soon as they became aware of any conflict and Sevco knew about the cinch deal before it became public because they have Stewart Robertson on the SPFL Board. The same Stewart Robertson that issued the Sevco statement claiming Rule 17 lets them choose which contractual duties to comply with.

If Rule 17 was intended to have the power that Sevco claim, then the SPFL would need to get advance clearance from ALL of its member clubs regarding which sponsors it could approach, let alone negotiate with. If it had that much power, then why didn't Sevco (32Red), Celtc (Dafabet), Hibs (Marathonbet) or any other club object to Ladbrokes sponsoring the league? The obvious answer is that Rule 17 does not have that much power because it would mean any one member could veto a sponsorship deal for the entire league. Not just Sevco with claims of a deal that they have provided no evidence for, but also a club in Division Two sponsored by the local second hand car salesman.

Your constant attempts to defend Sevco's pettiness are amusing, but don't stand up to any scrutiny.

[Moulin Yarns]

No buy if we had to remove a more lucrative sponsor so accommodate Cinch I'm sure Hibs would have something to say. It's irrelevant that Rangers chose not to do it with Ladbrokes (I suspect they didn't as Ladbrokes was a better deal than Cinch) because there's there's rule that allows them to opt out.

Again!!! Rangers are not being asked to remove anything

Ladbrokes wasn't a better deal than Cinch, even rangers admit that.

AND there are rules that they must display the SPFL AND league sponsors on the sleeve.

[degenerated]

I’m not paid half a million a year, strangely enough. But other countries seem to manage far better with a far worse product and worldwide coverage.Perhaps other countries have national terrestrial channels willing to showcase their product rather than being forced to rely on a couple of minutes of highlights on the next door countries one, that would help certainly sponsorship negotiations.

[SChibs]

Again!!! Rangers are not being asked to remove anything

Ladbrokes wasn't a better deal than Cinch, even rangers admit that.

AND there are rules that they must display the SPFL AND league sponsors on the sleeve.

Ladbroke were putting in more per season than Cinch are

[hibbysam]

The first time that anyone knew that Sevco had created an issue was when they went public by not featuring the cinch logo. Rule G46 is very clear that they have to wear the league sponsor's logo. If Rule 17 can override that, then it was incumbent on Sevco to inform the SPFL of the conflict as soon as they became aware of any conflict and Sevco knew about the cinch deal before it became public because they have Stewart Robertson on the SPFL Board. The same Stewart Robertson that issued the Sevco statement claiming Rule 17 lets them choose which contractual duties to comply with.

If Rule 17 was intended to have the power that Sevco claim, then the SPFL would need to get advance clearance from ALL of its member clubs regarding which sponsors it could approach, let alone negotiate with. If it had that much power, then why didn't Sevco (32Red), Celtc (Dafabet), Hibs (Marathonbet) or any other club object to Ladbrokes sponsoring the league? The obvious answer is that Rule 17 does not have that much power because it would mean any one member could veto a sponsorship deal for the entire league. Not just Sevco with claims of a deal that they have provided no evidence for, but also a club in Division Two sponsored by the local second hand car salesman.

Your constant attempts to defend Sevco's pettiness are amusing, but don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Your presuming Rangers haven’t informed the SPFL, your presuming the rule (which isn’t stated) requires said dialogue with the SPFL. If the rule is pointless then why is it even there? It’ll all come out, and I’ll place my bets on there being no punishment due to no rules being broken and the SPFL looking very, very silly - again.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ladbroke were putting in more per season than Cinch are

Why then is this being called the most lucrative sponsorship deal for the SPFL? Have you got any link to the Ladbrokes deal?

[hibbysam]

Why then is this being called the most lucrative sponsorship deal for the SPFL? Have you got any link to the Ladbrokes deal?

Overall value is £8m but for 5 years. Ladbrokes was £4m for the first 2, £5m then for the next 2. Not sure what the last year was.

It’s being billed as the most lucrative by those who don’t want you to delve deeper into it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ladbroke were putting in more per season than Cinch are

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/spfl-scottish-premiership-cinch-title-sponsorship

[SChibs]

Why then is this being called the most lucrative sponsorship deal for the SPFL? Have you got any link to the Ladbrokes deal?

Because 8m is the largest deal the SPFL has struck. But over the course of the deal it pays less per year.

[Victor]

I see that Rangers have a space on their right sleeve, so they obviously haven’t got a sponsor for that. Think all the breach of contract twaddle is down to Rangers being Rangers. Cannot imagine that any sponsor would have a condition that no other sponsors are allowed on a shirt, considering how many sponsors already appear on their kit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

I’m not happy with those in charge of our game underselling our game purely to satisfy their own failures from previous years. Our TV deal is shocking, our sponsorship deal is embarrassing. If this takes a stand against that then superb. Again, it doesn’t matter what club it is, it’s about time someone took a stand against the charlatans that run our game and started valuing it properly.

Cinch have won a watch with all this, they’re getting a ****load of sponsorship opportunities at 41 grounds in Scotland, and then this squabble, for next to nothing.


I think Scottish football is undervalued compared to other territories too.

I have also worked in and understand the sponsorship market.

Sevco’s behaviour won’t help us attract better sponsorship deals… quite the opposite in fact. Potential commercial partners will be put off by this.

I have no idea why you think their actions will do us any good at all. The opposite is true. Last season was overshadowed by Hearts having a hissy fit and now Sevco are at it. It’s depressing.

[jacomo]

Overall value is £8m but for 5 years. Ladbrokes was £4m for the first 2, £5m then for the next 2. Not sure what the last year was.

It’s being billed as the most lucrative by those who don’t want you to delve deeper into it.


Yes but this has no relevance to the issue being discussed.

[Aldo]

Yes but this has no relevance to the issue being discussed.

Correct.

It’s all about them and the boy Park.

Apparently it’s a conflict of interest?? I didn’t see Hibs or Marathon bet moaning (or Ladbrokes) with our sponsor.

It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog with that mob!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SChibs]

Yes but this has no relevance to the issue being discussed.

It has relevance to the question that was asked

[Moulin Yarns]

It has relevance to the question that was asked

But only if it will cost 41 clubs a share of £8m because 1 club believes they are above the rules of the members only club they signed up for.

[SChibs]

But only if it will cost 41 clubs a share of £8m because 1 club believes they are above the rules of the members only club they signed up for.

Are they 'above the rules' or are they citing and exploiting an existing legitimate rule?

[jacomo]

It has relevance to the question that was asked


Ok but hibbysam’s main gripe seems to be that the cinch deal is poor and the SPFL are doing a bad job of selling our game.

That may be the case, but it has nothing to do with why Sevco are refusing to honour the sponsorship benefits.

Remember this is not something the SPFL have imposed upon Sevco. The SPFL is a membership organisation and Sevco hold senior positions. They knew full well the terms of the deal before it was signed.

[jacomo]

Are they 'above the rules' or are they citing and exploiting an existing legitimate rule?


See my answer above. Sevco will have agreed to the cinch deal.

Then one of their directors kicked off and they are pretending it’s nothing to do with them. Don’t fall for their nonsense.

[EI255]

Go Dundee Hibs

Get right in there

Gerrard you muppet [emoji28]

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Are they 'above the rules' or are they citing and exploiting an existing legitimate rule?

I said that they believe that they are above the rules. Jacomo makes a very valid point.

[The_Sauz]

Because the league didn't have a sponsor at the time
It does not matter if we did not have a league sponsor or not, you can't have a private sponsors patch on the sleeve! I'm sure it's a FIFA rule, it's the same with numbers must be shown on the back of a strip now!

[SChibs]

It does not matter if we did not have a league sponsor or not, you can't have a private sponsors patch on the sleeve! I'm sure it's a FIFA rule, it's the same with numbers must be shown on the back of a strip now!

Have you got a link to where it says FIFA don't alow sleeve sponsors. I don't think that's true

[EI255]

Relegate the putrid outfit.

No one likes them.

We DON'T care.

Edit.. Actual fact, they bring nothing to the Scottish table, so fug them.

[EI255]

Before I go to bed, I just want to say, Connor Goldson, you are a true blue welt piece.. . Saw yer wee mistake(s) through the week, yer no as guid as ye think ye are. That's why yer SPL, no EPL. Garden path and aw that. Total welt piece you are.

May

2016

[hibbysam]

See my answer above. Sevco will have agreed to the cinch deal.

Then one of their directors kicked off and they are pretending it’s nothing to do with them. Don’t fall for their nonsense.

They (apparently) made it clear to the SPFL prior to the deal being struck. It’ll all come out in the wash I’m sure, but simply saying relegate them, boot them out etc even if they haven’t been found to do anything wrong is dangerous. That’s the main point I’ve been making all along, the terms of the deal is just an add on as it’s embarrassing that we’re going backwards in this country.

[SChibs]

They (apparently) made it clear to the SPFL prior to the deal being struck. It’ll all come out in the wash I’m sure, but simply saying relegate them, boot them out etc even if they haven’t been found to do anything wrong is dangerous. That’s the main point I’ve been making all along, the terms of the deal is just an add on as it’s embarrassing that we’re going backwards in this country.

I agree. I think they are doing it to try and undermine the SPFL but I do think they are doing it within the rules.

[jacomo]

They (apparently) made it clear to the SPFL prior to the deal being struck. It’ll all come out in the wash I’m sure, but simply saying relegate them, boot them out etc even if they haven’t been found to do anything wrong is dangerous. That’s the main point I’ve been making all along, the terms of the deal is just an add on as it’s embarrassing that we’re going backwards in this country.


Made what clear? That Sevco have an effective veto on any league sponsor?

If you are concerned about the value of Scottish football then this is a very good way to diminish it even further. Yes maybe we are going backwards but you seem to be backing the club responsible for scuppering the headline sponsorship deal.

[CentreLine]

I agree. I think they are doing it to try and undermine the SPFL but I do think they are doing it within the rules.

That’s where I am. It’s like the schoolboy disrupting a class without risking being expelled. They seem determined to undermine Scottish football and I can’t help feel it’s an attempt at two fingers to all the other clubs that they think “relegated” them. The fact of the matter is that the SPL (as was), who are the clubs, went to extraordinary lengths to change the rules and save the name of Rangers from extinction.

If the clubs, in the form of the SPFL, do not take firm action this bunch of wreckers could well do serious damage to the game in Scotland. As they said they would when Old Rangers in trouble.

[hibbysam]

Made what clear? That Sevco have an effective veto on any league sponsor?

If you are concerned about the value of Scottish football then this is a very good way to diminish it even further. Yes maybe we are going backwards but you seem to be backing the club responsible for scuppering the headline sponsorship deal.

That the sponsor was conflicting one of their own contracts. That’s then down to the league and Rangers and their respective legal teams to conclude whether rules are being broken or not. If not then it’s not just Rangers that can back out of it, but any club.

This deal was struck before this came out, so no, this episode isn’t diminishing anything to do with any deals struck prior to it. It’s clear that Doncaster has failed Scottish football over and over again and we can do far better.

[Moulin Yarns]

That the sponsor was conflicting one of their own contracts. That’s then down to the league and Rangers and their respective legal teams to conclude whether rules are being broken or not. If not then it’s not just Rangers that can back out of it, but any club.

This deal was struck before this came out, so no, this episode isn’t diminishing anything to do with any deals struck prior to it. It’s clear that Doncaster has failed Scottish football over and over again and we can do far better.

Again you are taking the position that rangers have done nothing wrong.

Cinch are a UK wide, online only car sales company. Which contract does rangers have which conflicts with it?

[hibbysam]

Again you are taking the position that rangers have done nothing wrong.

Cinch are a UK wide, online only car sales company. Which contract does rangers have which conflicts with it?

Again, I’ve said nothing of the sort. The only time a punishment should be given out is if they have done something wrong, which has still to be proven. That’ll come out now that arbitration has been started.

Not once have I said Rangers have done or not done wrong, just merely stating that punishing clubs if they haven’t done wrong, as some on here want, is dangerous.

The fact the SPFL have asked for a pre existing contract tells me if there was one, then Rangers did have a get out. If that wasn’t the case then the contract would be irrelevant and Rangers would be in the wrong regardless. So now it all boils down to if there was a contract or not. Strangely enough you keep asking that last question, why would I know if they did or not? 😂 that’s for the top honchos of our game to work out. One of the two sides are going to come out of it very silly, I’d imagine Rangers would walk away with a fine if wrong, Doncaster would have to walk if he’s wrong and the sponsorship is ripped up.

[Moulin Yarns]

Again, I’ve said nothing of the sort. The only time a punishment should be given out is if they have done something wrong, which has still to be proven. That’ll come out now that arbitration has been started.

Not once have I said Rangers have done or not done wrong, just merely stating that punishing clubs if they haven’t done wrong, as some on here want, is dangerous.

The fact the SPFL have asked for a pre existing contract tells me if there was one, then Rangers did have a get out. If that wasn’t the case then the contract would be irrelevant and Rangers would be in the wrong regardless. So now it all boils down to if there was a contract or not. Strangely enough you keep asking that last question, why would I know if they did or not? 😂 that’s for the top honchos of our game to work out. One of the two sides are going to come out of it very silly, I’d imagine Rangers would walk away with a fine if wrong, Doncaster would have to walk if he’s wrong and the sponsorship is ripped up.

You keep saying that rangers have a pre existing contract which conflict with the SPFL deal with Cinch.

Now you're saying that you don't know if there is one. Make up your mind 🙄

[jacomo]

Again, I’ve said nothing of the sort. The only time a punishment should be given out is if they have done something wrong, which has still to be proven. That’ll come out now that arbitration has been started.

Not once have I said Rangers have done or not done wrong, just merely stating that punishing clubs if they haven’t done wrong, as some on here want, is dangerous.

The fact the SPFL have asked for a pre existing contract tells me if there was one, then Rangers did have a get out. If that wasn’t the case then the contract would be irrelevant and Rangers would be in the wrong regardless. So now it all boils down to if there was a contract or not. Strangely enough you keep asking that last question, why would I know if they did or not? 😂 that’s for the top honchos of our game to work out. One of the two sides are going to come out of it very silly, I’d imagine Rangers would walk away with a fine if wrong, Doncaster would have to walk if he’s wrong and the sponsorship is ripped up.


Successful sponsorship, like many other business activities, rely on best endeavours from all parties. This is legally tricky, but there is no doubt that the current and future attractiveness of the SPFL to sponsors will be damaged by this.

I have no idea why you are cheering Sevco on. You seem to have a deep dislike for the people running the SPFL, and that’s fine, but this latest row is a disaster.

[hibbysam]

You keep saying that rangers have a pre existing contract which conflict with the SPFL deal with Cinch.

Now you're saying that you don't know if there is one. Make up your mind 🙄

I’ve made it quite clear from the start with two letters ‘IF’. There may be some follow on posts where I haven’t then repeated myself, however if you didn’t read the original posts correctly that’s your issue. Rangers claim they have, SPFL we’re supposedly told about this and proceeded anyway, now have started arbitration. No punishments were ever going to be handed out without proof whether we like Rangers or not. You keep asking me to tell you about Rangers’ commercial contracts after telling you time after time I’ve no idea which one they are talking about, and posting links to their website which sadly isn’t going to stand up in ‘court’.

[hibbysam]

Successful sponsorship, like many other business activities, rely on best endeavours from all parties. This is legally tricky, but there is no doubt that the current and future attractiveness of the SPFL to sponsors will be damaged by this.

I have no idea why you are cheering Sevco on. You seem to have a deep dislike for the people running the SPFL, and that’s fine, but this latest row is a disaster.

A ‘disaster’? It’s possibly bad news but Cinch will be rubbing their hands. Rangers are doing more for them during this spat than putting a tiny board or logo up btw.

If they pulled out we will be in the same situation as we were last year, a situation the league chose to go down. A situation the leagues CEO already told us last year when he was getting pelters about it that sponsors aren’t really important due to their small value.

[jacomo]

A ‘disaster’? It’s possibly bad news but Cinch will be rubbing their hands. Rangers are doing more for them during this spat than putting a tiny board or logo up btw.

If they pulled out we will be in the same situation as we were last year, a situation the league chose to go down. A situation the leagues CEO already told us last year when he was getting pelters about it that sponsors aren’t really important due to their small value.


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?