Lurkst Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 27 minutes ago, SANTAN said: It's actually a poppy. Poppycock! 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 13 hours ago, LondonHMFC said: An odd looking penis. And that thing in front of him looks a bit like a willy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 Theres been plenty times that a league sponsor has been in direct competition with a clubs sponsor. Be quite interesting to see how this plays out, both organisations are more than capable of making a rip roaring c**t of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiGi Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 Not sure if I'm missing something but Park wants to renege on contractual obligations to the league sponsor because said sponsor is a rival of his personal business (and the money is peanuts)? I'm sure that will go well for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 I thought all Parks had was a bus company, never knew he sold cars too.On a side note, Robertson’s outburst at the weekend about the level of sponsorship is bang on the money. Doncaster has proven time and time again he completely undersells the league. I am get it, I am biased against him and it may be that these are the best deals he can get but it feels we are worth much much more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 Comedic genius. The answer at 3:20 made me laugh out loud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacky1990 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 1 hour ago, steelmen said: I thought all Parks had was a bus company, never knew he sold cars too. On a side note, Robertson’s outburst at the weekend about the level of sponsorship is bang on the money. Doncaster has proven time and time again he completely undersells the league. I am get it, I am biased against him and it may be that these are the best deals he can get but it feels we are worth much much more. It is probably the best deals HE can get. Someone competent would surely be able to get Scottish football a better deal than the Norwegian and Danish leagues (source: List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country - Wikipedia). The sponsorship thing is a joke though. When Ladbrooks sponsored the league it was in direct competition to Rangers' main shirt sponsor and that wasnt an issue. But now it is because it goes against a director's personal business? Strikes me as the club just being difficult for being difficult sake and flaming the us v them hymn sheet that Rangers seem to adore so much. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 Do we know that the issue with the sponsorship is definitely to do with Park's other business interests? I'm not saying it's not, just that most articles I've seen on it haven't made it clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 What else would it be? Cinch are a direct competitor to Parks of Hamilton. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, TheScarf said: What else would it be? Cinch are a direct competitor to Parks of Hamilton. I don't know, the article simply refers to the "fulfilment of rights obligations" which is quite vague. It might well that reason, but nothing so far has been very clear. Edit: I also can't remember if Ibrox carries advertising for Park's of Hamilton. I never looked out for it at the Brighton game so not sure to be honest. Edited August 2, 2021 by AJF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, AJF said: I don't know, the article simply refers to the "fulfilment of rights obligations" which is quite vague. It might well that reason, but nothing so far has been very clear. Which one would deduce is Rangers wearing the league sponsors on their sleeve. Which they currently don't do, presumably due to the conflict of interest with Parks. Edit - The chance of it being anything other than that are slim to none. Edited August 2, 2021 by TheScarf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 30 minutes ago, TheScarf said: Cinch are a direct competitor to Parks of Hamilton. And far more trustworthy one would imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, TheScarf said: Which one would deduce is Rangers wearing the league sponsors on their sleeve. Which they currently don't do, presumably due to the conflict of interest with Parks. Edit - The chance of it being anything other than that are slim to none. Yeah, I don't disagree - just asking the question as I'd have thought it would be made clear if that was the reason. Edited August 2, 2021 by AJF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacky1990 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, AJF said: Yeah, I don't disagree - just asking the question as I'd have thought it would be made clear if that was the reason. Hard to make the SPFL look like the bad guys if you come out and say words to the effect of "aww we wont wear the league's sponsor on our jerseys because it might impact the non-footballing business of one of our directors...but we'll take their prize money at the end of the season of course". Dont know the ins and outs of the contract of course, but I would imagine cinch/SPFL could, and should, be within their right to withhold prize money if any team refuses to promote the company as agreed with the SPFL in the contract. Also makes Rangers look pretty pathetic IMO so not sure what exactly your board are trying to achieve with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 From the Sun, so maybe not the most reliable source. But dastardly Rangers are refusing to back down. And SunSport can reveal their argument centres around Rule I7 in the SPFL rulebook - which they believe allows them to snub certain terms of the five-year contract. It states clubs are NOT “obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned.” Rangers are arguing they have various long-standing sponsorship deals in place which would be at risk should they display the cinch logo. Crucially, they also insist the SPFL failed to formally write to clubs before the deal was struck. Those are the fine details being argued over by both sides. The SPFL’s own lawyers are fighting their case and insisting the Ibrox club are out of line. And Scotland’s other clubs and waiting in the wings to see how the dispute unfolds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 I wonder whether there’s a clause in some of our existing SEKO or TOMKET or BITCI deals whereby we can’t undercut the pricing we charge for equivalent spaces, to ensure they’re not on the hook for £2m for the left sleeve and then we sell the right for £20. If that’s the case and the maths works out that the per game cost of the cinch deal is actually worse, and would trigger a clause, it’d make sense as to why they’re not displaying it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 While that sounds plausible, you'd think the managing body who organise sponsorship for 42 clubs would have some sort of clause overriding individual ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangemouth Bairn Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 6 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said: While that sounds plausible, you'd think the managing body who organise sponsorship for 42 clubs would have some sort of clause overriding individual ones. It’s the SPFL we are talking about here. A bunch of absolute morons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 2, 2021 Author Share Posted August 2, 2021 57 minutes ago, Orbix said: I wonder whether there’s a clause in some of our existing SEKO or TOMKET or BITCI deals whereby we can’t undercut the pricing we charge for equivalent spaces, to ensure they’re not on the hook for £2m for the left sleeve and then we sell the right for £20. If that’s the case and the maths works out that the per game cost of the cinch deal is actually worse, and would trigger a clause, it’d make sense as to why they’re not displaying it. We're all guessing but this seems very plausible - especially with us announcing Tomket as official sleeve sponsors last year. Plus, of course, the SPFL are utter knuts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 It’s the only thing that makes sense to me as to why the response has been so aggressive. Imagine Bisgrove being told he’s worked his backside off to raise the profile of the club and generate deals, only for the SPFL to have signed a shit agreement that comes with a bonus of even more shit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.