Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[bennett]

1 hour ago, steelmen said:

I wonder if this is nothing to do with Rangers per say, does Parks have a commercial contract direct with sfa/spfl? Is that what the cinch deal is breaching?

 

Would a seperate Parks deal with the league/association affect Rangers though?

 

[alta-pete]

21 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

No bloodstained poopy on our shirts 

If that persists I’d suggest a wee trip to the GP. 

[bennett]

Rangers statement. 

 

TODAY'S court ruling once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL.

These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach.

The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Every Rangers statement-

 

 

[stressball]

2 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Every Rangers statement-

 

 

Accurate.

This court win basically means Parks of Hamilton will now be present at arbitration, simply delays it. 
 

Daft not to have them there in the first place.

[ribzanelli]

13 minutes ago, stressball said:

Daft not to have them there in the first place.

True, but if it is true that Rangers haven’t shown the contract to the SPFL then how would they know who to invite?

Edited August 24, 2021 by ribzanelli

[For Your Pies Only]

I think the most entertaining part of the many club statements they have released about the Cinch deal is the repeated phrase 'we have complied with the SPFL's own rules,' when what they actually mean is 'we have complied with our own interpretation of the SPFL's rules and ignored the parts which don't suit our narrative'.

Top shithousery, and it's given their fans and defenders in the press plenty of ammunition, even though it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in the courts.

[stressball]

1 hour ago, ribzanelli said:

True, but if it is true that Rangers haven’t shown the contract to the SPFL then how would they know who to invite?

Solid point in fairness.

 

if they just gave them a redacted version of the contract under the premise of it being disclosed in confidence we wouldn’t have this mess.

Instead of “we have a contract that causes a conflict of interest with this sponsor”

 

’can we see it just to confirm?’

 

”naw.”

[The Other Foot]

Gosh. For a club whose fanbase like to portray themselves as hard-working, hard-nosed, sleeves-rolled-up, stiff-upper-lip protestant stalwarts, they don't half like a moany-moany-whine-whine. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by The Other Foot

[Wee-Bey]

15 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

No bloodstained poopy on our shirts 

This is basically just the colour maroon and a hearts strip tbf.

[bennett]

3 hours ago, ribzanelli said:

True, but if it is true that Rangers haven’t shown the contract to the SPFL then how would they know who to invite?

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 

 

" “We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"

 

 

[steelmen]

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 
 
" “We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"
 
 

If this a contract between parks and Rangers then they really aren’t an interested party in the arbitration.

This dispute is between the spfl and Rangers.

[ribzanelli]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 

 

" “We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"

 

 

Yeah maybe. I think the fact we can debate it on here though proves that Rangers are being deliberately opaque, given that Parks doesn’t seem to be on their list of sponsors and have no evident sponsorship hoardings. No doubt SPFL are less than competent but not sure Rangers can be given the benefit of the doubt neither given their track record of poor transparency and hollow statements. Time will tell I guess.

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, steelmen said:

If this a contract between parks and Rangers then they really aren’t an interested party in the arbitration.

This dispute is between the spfl and Rangers.

That's an arguable point, but the judge has ruled the other way on it, so it's testably false.

[House Bartender]

The Rangers to terminate the contract with Parks given that the latter permit racist behaviour on their charabancs hired to RSCs.

[Drew Brees]

[Drew Brees]

RANGERS can confirm that during our testing schedule, we have received positive COVID-19 tests. 

Those identified as positive are now in self isolation along with ‘close contacts’. 

We have followed best practice in our procedures and protocols. From the outset of the pandemic, Rangers has worked closely with the Scottish Government and Scottish football to ensure the health of our staff is protected at all times. We will continue to do so

Edited August 24, 2021 by Drew Brees

[G51]

Most of the squad aren’t fully vaxxed yet, and we’re 48 hours removed from a bus trip to Dingwall.

Expecting the team for Alashkert and Celtic to be virtually unrecognisable, barring Davis, McGregor and Arfield.

[AJF]

25 minutes ago, G51 said:

Most of the squad aren’t fully vaxxed yet, and we’re 48 hours removed from a bus trip to Dingwall.

Expecting the team for Alashkert and Celtic to be virtually unrecognisable, barring Davis, McGregor and Arfield.

I wouldn’t bank on McGregor. From what I’m hearing he is one of the close contacts

[Grangemouth Bairn]

12 minutes ago, AJF said:

I wouldn’t bank on McGregor. From what I’m hearing he is one of the close contacts

Surely McGregor will be fully vaccinated due to his age ??