New SPFL sponsor

[ATLIS]

Wanting Doncaster binned and Rangers* nuked don't have to be separate things

[Ric]

5 hours ago, Clown Job said:

SPFL asking the SFA to arbitrate...

[stu92]

44 minutes ago, gannonball said:

No idea if legit as its off twitter but this reminds of their ‘smoking gun’ claim that when pushed they didn’t  have a thing other than absolute waffle.

Thought the same thing and was just about to ask if anything ever came of that, as I wasn’t following the ins and outs as closely as some so can’t really remember the conclusion. Fizzled to nothing I take it?

[Aim Here]

11 minutes ago, stu92 said:

Thought the same thing and was just about to ask if anything ever came of that, as I wasn’t following the ins and outs as closely as some so can’t really remember the conclusion. Fizzled to nothing I take it?

Yeah. They had a big meeting to discuss the startling revelations that the Chairman of Raith Rovers wasn't going to let Calley Thistle claim prize money for a null season and that Neil Doncaster was able to count up the number of people saying League Reconstruction was a pile of bollocks and then had a vote to dump the dossier in the bin, and that was that.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Aim Here

[Gorgie greatness]

43 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Educational attainment levels in West Edinburgh are definitely slipping.

It's good that you showed your working, but Scottish fitba' really isn't going to be collecting £1.68 billion any time soon.

The answer you're looking for is '£8 million'. Or maybe an average of £38,095.24

 

That’s wot I said

[Ray Patterson]

21 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said:

That’s wot I said

You used x indicating multiply when you should have used / to indicate division.

This is Primary 2 stuff come on.

Edited August 9, 2021 by ArabAuslander

[Gorgie greatness]

25 minutes ago, ArabAuslander said:

You used x indicating multiply when you should have used / to indicate division.

This is Primary 2 stuff come on.

In primary 2 I didn’t have fermer fingers

[Jacky1990]

Rangers' claim of a conflicting existing contract has all the credibility of a 10 year old telling his mates he has a girlfriend round his gran's bit.

If this is proven to be utter bollocks, which looks incredibly likely, fine the fuckers the extent of their league end of season prize money plus any legal and man hour fees the SFA, SPFL and cinch have amassed in this dispute.

[SANTAN]

I feel terrible about this whole situation. Poor Cinch. Poor Doncaster, my heart is bleeding for the suffering we have heaped on all of you genuine football fans on here. We all love this game, the sport is beautiful and Rangers are ruining all of this with our refusal to wear a brand name on the sleeve of our jersey. I hope those playing in Europe this week can still enjoy their games. 

[kingjoey]

It amazes me the number of people that don’t know how the arbitration system works. Headline on the back page of The Times today “SFA To Rule On Sponsor Row”. Even if rangers agree to it, the SFA will not be ruling on it.

[Dundee Hibernian]

There's only one person who can arbitrate on this dispute: step forward the SFA's Sandy Bryson.

I've seen his guidance already to both parties:

"Once a contract has been registered with the club, it remains registered and predominant unless and until the contract is revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SPFL contract procedures, such as a breach of SPFL Rule G46, any club playing out of Ibrox is treated differently, and their contract stands unless and until it was revoked."

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

It amazes me the number of people that don’t know how the arbitration system works. Headline on the back page of The Times today “SFA To Rule On Sponsor Row”. Even if rangers agree to it, the SFA will not be ruling on it.

How does it work Joey? I can't be bothered looking it up and had assumed from how it was reported it was a binding arbitration. Is it more of a mediation? 

[Dee Man]

I can't get my head around the whole 'we at Rangers made the SPFL aware of an issue and they didn't get back to us' thing. It reads like 'we were aware that what we were doing was not strictly within the rules so we let the SPFL know and because they didn't get back to us we're just going to run with it anyway'.

I might be miles out but that's the way it comes across. 

[Jacky1990]

2 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

I can't get my head around the whole 'we at Rangers made the SPFL aware of an issue and they didn't get back to us' thing. It reads like 'we were aware that what we were doing was not strictly within the rules so we let the SPFL know and because they didn't get back to us we're just going to run with it anyway'.

I might be miles out but that's the way it comes across. 

The question I have is how did they make SPFL aware, i.e. was it a formal declaration by official means of communication or was it some offhand remark in a meeting or during a phone call or something.

As usual with the new club, the hyperbole in their statement(s) is rife without any sort of detail or description.

 

My reading of the statements are something like this:

SPFL: "We have a new sponsor"

Rangers: "We have an issue with this sponsor because of a pre-existing contract"

SPFL: "Please provide details"

Rangers: .....

**Season starts**

Rangers: "We wont advertise the new sponsor because of a pre-existing contract"

SPFL: "Please provide details"

Rangers: "Dear media and fans, we TOLD the SPFL we had issues but they never listened to us".

 

cinch must be fuming about this. They've taken a financial risk in sponsoring the leagues. And you just know that there will be goons within the Rangers support that will refuse to use cinch because they'll see it as some anti-Rangers organisation.

[Dons_1988]

46 minutes ago, coprolite said:

How does it work Joey? I can't be bothered looking it up and had assumed from how it was reported it was a binding arbitration. Is it more of a mediation? 

The SFA in theory just facilitate an arbitration I believe. The judgement will be independent. 

It often gets reported that the SFA are the arbiters when that’s clearly not the case. 

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

The SFA in theory just facilitate an arbitration I believe. The judgement will be independent. 

It often gets reported that the SFA are the arbiters when that’s clearly not the case. 

So it is binding, just not the SFA's decision. Makes sense. 

[SANTAN]

I think we actually communicated various emails, they were later found in the junk section. 

[Jinky67]

40 minutes ago, Jacky1990 said:

The question I have is how did they make SPFL aware, i.e. was it a formal declaration by official means of communication or was it some offhand remark in a meeting or during a phone call or something.

As usual with the new club, the hyperbole in their statement(s) is rife without any sort of detail or description.

 

My reading of the statements are something like this:

SPFL: "We have a new sponsor"

Rangers: "We have an issue with this sponsor because of a pre-existing contract"

SPFL: "Please provide details"

Rangers: .....

**Season starts**

Rangers: "We wont advertise the new sponsor because of a pre-existing contract"

SPFL: "Please provide details"

Rangers: "Dear media and fans, we TOLD the SPFL we had issues but they never listened to us".

 

cinch must be fuming about this. They've taken a financial risk in sponsoring the leagues. And you just know that there will be goons within the Rangers support that will refuse to use cinch because they'll see it as some anti-Rangers organisation.

How long does it take to setup a "backdated" contract? 

I think Rangers need to credit people with some intelligence. Judging by what has been said before its becoming more and more apparent to everyone that this is simply DP not wanting to advertise a significant competitor to his primary income source and if that is proven to be the case then that is completely unacceptable. I can understand why, i absolutely can however his job is to oversee the best interests of Rangers not his his own 

When you look through the list of Rangers official and associate partners i'm struggling to see which one of those operate in the same field as Cinch? Interesting that Parks don't appear as an official or associate partner either. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Jinky67

[Jacky1990]

5 minutes ago, SANTAN said:

I think we actually communicated various emails, they were later found in the junk section. 

I imagine the junk section is the most appropriate place for most of your lot's correspondence.

[Jacky1990]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

How long does it take to setup a "backdated" contract? 

I think Rangers need to credit people with some intelligence. Judging by what has been said before its becoming more and more apparent to everyone that this is simply DP not wanting to advertise a significant competitor to his primary income source and if that is proven to be the case then that is completely unacceptable. 

When you look through the list of Rangers official and associate partners i'm struggling to see which one of those operate in the same field as Cinch? Interesting that Parks don't appear as an official or associate partner either. 

Given this is purely playing to the gallery of their fanbase, not sure intelligence and independent thought is something you can necessarily attribute to the people this dispute is for.