steelmen Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions. Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch. Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards. The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.n A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved. “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. “Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action. “This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 43 minutes 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? That was my first thought when I saw that statement. For as long as I’ve been about the big teams have been ferried about in Parks buses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinky67 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 hour ago, bennett said: RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions. Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch. Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards. The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.n A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved. “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. “Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action. “This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game Oooft. I think you said it would be ridiculous if Rangers objection to Cinch was due to it being a direct competitor to Parks or at least something to that effect. Whats your thoughts now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 hour ago, AJF said: Ach, we all know spelling isn’t the forte of Celtic fans considering they unfurled a banner missing the “i” out of their own teams name No bloodstained poopy on our shirts 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 21 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: No bloodstained poopy on our shirts If that persists I’d suggest a wee trip to the GP. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Every Rangers statement- 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressball Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 (edited) 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 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For Your Pies Only Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressball Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Other Foot Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 (edited) 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 15 hours ago, Dons_1988 said: No bloodstained poopy on our shirts This is basically just the colour maroon and a hearts strip tbf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Bartender Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 The Rangers to terminate the contract with Parks given that the latter permit racist behaviour on their charabancs hired to RSCs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Brees Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 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.