Revised Cinch Deal (no Sevco Content)

[Iain G]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61816030

New / revised SPFL deal with cinch announced but The Rangers are exempt! What the hell is going on with the governance in charge of our game where one specific club can continue to do what it likes, even when that damages the rest of the teams and football???

[Mon Dieu4]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61816030

New / revised SPFL deal with cinch announced but The Rangers are exempt! What the hell is going on with the governance in charge of our game where one specific club can continue to do what it likes, even when that damages the rest of the teams and football???

They shouldn't be able to get any of the funds from the sponsorship if that's the case

[hibby rae]

They shouldn't be able to get any of the funds from the sponsorship if that's the case

I could be wrong, but I think the DR says they are still to profit from the deal.

Not sure how that works, can Hibs be given advertising revenue for things we aren't marketing?

[Since452]

Kick them out the league.

[Mon Dieu4]

I could be wrong, but I think the DR says they are still to profit from the deal.

Not sure how that works, can Hibs be given advertising revenue for things we aren't marketing?

Exactly, if you are not actively promoting a sponsor and have been in a court case with the governing body over it then the simple way out would be to just not receive any of the money, typical Huns

[Diclonius]

Beyond parody at this point.

[HibsGW]

If they get any money out of the sponsorship whilst refusing to take part that is absolutely ridiculous. How obvious can it get there is a serious issue with teams not being treated evenly in Scotland.

[Carheenlea]

Where are Rangers benefiting here? From what I see the deal doesn’t include Rangers but the financial package to the league is largely the same as before.

I’m assuming Rangers will receive no sponsorship reward from this deal?

[Pretty Boy]

The sponsorship deal is crap. What clubs and the league are expected to give and what we get back doesn't really add up. Hopefully it's something highlighted when the long awaited review commissioned by ourselves among others is published.

However it should be crap for everyone, you can't have one team getting special treatment because they made the biggest fuss.

[Iain G]

The sponsorship deal is crap. What clubs and the league are expected to give and what we get back doesn't really add up. Hopefully it's something highlighted when the long awaited review commissioned by ourselves among others is published.

However it should be crap for everyone, you can't have one team getting special treatment because they made the biggest fuss.

The review will be based on all clubs being reasonable and working for the good of the game in Scotland, at least one member won't do that and just look after their own self interest (or two members, and I use member deliberately!)

[BlackSheep]

Where are Rangers benefiting here? From what I see the deal doesn’t include Rangers but the financial package to the league is largely the same as before.

I’m assuming Rangers will receive no sponsorship reward from this deal?

Reports are that Rangers WILL receive their share of the financial package.

[Jim44]

It’s about time the SFA and SPFL played hardball with Rangers. They won’t tho’, as they are terrified of them.

[rossevenil]

Reports are that Rangers WILL receive their share of the financial package.



So rankers earn money from 2 sponsors for only actually advertising 1 of them? So why shouldn`t every club have been able to double their money? Absolute madness again and them making the rules to suit themselves and getting away with it.

[SChibs]

Apparently research was done and the Rangers debacle actually got Cinch's name out there and spoken about way more than just the advertising did so they benefitted in a roundabout way.

[SChibs]

So rankers earn money from 2 sponsors for only actually advertising 1 of them? So why shouldn`t every club have been able to double their money? Absolute madness again and them making the rules to suit themselves and getting away with it.

Probably because they entered in a multi year contract whilst the SPFL had no sponsor, there were no rules in place to stop them doing so at the time

[Danderhall Hibs]

It’s about time the SFA and SPFL played hardball with Rangers. They won’t tho’, as they are terrified of them.

Maybe they’re correct? Otherwise the SPFL would’ve won the case?

[RyeSloan]

Maybe they’re correct? Otherwise the SPFL would’ve won the case?

Think this is probably accurate.

SPFL not completing due diligence with their clubs and now having to back down as well a pay Rangers a cut of sponsorship they don’t have to partake in.

For all I detest Rangers it’s looking most likely this is more likely the SPFL that have messed up here. Clearly the rules around this type of thing didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[overdrive]

On that basis could Hibs have said 'nah we're not having anything to do with Ladbrokes/William Hill/Betfred' when we were sponsored by Marathon Bet?

[HoboHarry]

It’s about time the SFA and SPFL played hardball with Rangers. They won’t tho’, as they are terrified of them.
I'd love to know what it is that Sevco have over them. It must be pretty serious that those khants can act with such impunity....

[ancient hibee]

Don’t think there has been a court case which shows Rangers would have won. Shambles by the SPFL I think. Presumably the sponsorship money goes into the central pool and is divided up according to league positions. It may be that some of it is set aside to be divided equally between the clubs carrying the advertising.

[Jim44]

Don’t think there has been a court case which shows Rangers would have won. Shambles by the SPFL I think. Presumably the sponsorship money goes into the central pool and is divided up according to league positions. It may be that some of it is set aside to be divided equally between the clubs carrying the advertising.

I doubt it. It just highlights the unprincipled, gutter morals of Rangers. They don’t want anything to do with cinch and the deal with Scottish football but they are prepared to/probably insist on accepting their cash. It stinks.:deal:

[SChibs]

On that basis could Hibs have said 'nah we're not having anything to do with Ladbrokes/William Hill/Betfred' when we were sponsored by Marathon Bet?

If the SPFL had failed to get a sponsor so we got our own sleeve sponsor from Ladbrokes that lasted 2 years then probably yes. This boils down to the SPFL failing to secure a sponsor and Rangers were within their rights to find their own to plug the financial gap left by having no league one

[neil7908]

What a s***show. As much as I detest Der Hun, I suspect this is a massive cock up by the Scottish football authorities. For the 100th time.

[Eyrie]

Kick them out the league.

Agreed.

Although I wouldn't need any excuse to do that other than what they are.

[ancient hibee]

I doubt it. It just highlights the unprincipled, gutter morals of Rangers. They don’t want anything to do with cinch and the deal with Scottish football but they are prepared to/probably insist on accepting their cash. It stinks.:deal:

Doncaster knew that if he went to court and lost he would rightly have been on his bike. Clearly he did not think the SPFL had a good case so he fudged the agreement to get himself off a hook of his own making.The truth is that clubs were doing their own deals because of a delay in signing up a league sponsor. I would have expected Hibs to do exactly what Rangers have done if any deal cut across our own commercial arrangements.

[Paul1642]

Absolutely baffling. If a club were to rightly take a stand against the amount of gambling adverting would they be aloud to take the money without displaying anything related?

[Lago]

Where are Rangers benefiting here? From what I see the deal doesn’t include Rangers but the financial package to the league is largely the same as before.

I’m assuming Rangers will receive no sponsorship reward from this deal?
You assume wrong apparently

[Iain G]

Doncaster knew that if he went to court and lost he would rightly have been on his bike. Clearly he did not think the SPFL had a good case so he fudged the agreement to get himself off a hook of his own making.The truth is that clubs were doing their own deals because of a delay in signing up a league sponsor. I would have expected Hibs to do exactly what Rangers have done if any deal cut across our own commercial arrangements.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61831888

Now they want an apology and an inquiry! This is just madness! For an establishment club they really need to play the victim card to justify their fat egos and to get one up to feel like the big man...

[speedy_gonzales]

Was just watching this afternoon's game over again and noticed when the managers were interviewed after the game that there are two similar, but different, sponsors boards.
Yup, GVB stands in front of a board with no Cinch sponsorship.
The thing is, these are the boards the clubs supply & use, not the media, so our one has all the usual sponsors plus the Hibs badges on it but we still go out our way to make the exact same board sans-Cinch for them!?!
The tail is very much wagging the dog!

[Iain G]

Was just watching this afternoon's game over again and noticed when the managers were interviewed after the game that there are two similar, but different, sponsors boards.
Yup, GVB stands in front of a board with no Cinch sponsorship.
The thing is, these are the boards the clubs supply & use, not the media, so our one has all the usual sponsors plus the Hibs badges on it but we still go out our way to make the exact same board sans-Cinch for them!?!
The tail is very much wagging the dog!

Maybe Sevco have to lug it to every ground with them in the back of the coach beside Morelos 😂