Sevco at it again

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Still a one horse town. 😉

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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..]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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