New SPFL sponsor

[SANTAN]

17 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Less money to chuck at players? 

I forget Doncaster is loaded. 

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Oh that's definitely to do with Parks.

I assumed there was further update.

 

Just now, LiviLion said:

They're both related though. (Allegedly) Rangers didn't put the sponsor on their sleeve because cinch is a competitor of Parks, not necessarily moving on or finding different reasons etc 

Has it been confirmed it's to do with Parks though? As far as I am aware, Parks isn't a partner of Rangers. If you go to our website they do not appear as an Official Partner, an Associate Partner or an Official Supplier. I can't be sure, but I don't even think we carry Parks of Hamilton advertising at Ibrox but I could certainly be wrong about that.

So that, for me anyway, casts doubt that we would be contesting the Cinch deal on the basis that it breaches a prior commercial contractual obligation with Parks if they are not a partner of the club.

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

 

Has it been confirmed it's to do with Parks though? As far as I am aware, Parks isn't a partner of Rangers. If you go to our website they do not appear as an Official Partner, an Associate Partner or an Official Supplier. I can't be sure, but I don't even think we carry Parks of Hamilton advertising at Ibrox but I could certainly be wrong about that.

So that, for me anyway, casts doubt that we would be contesting the Cinch deal on the basis that it breaches a prior commercial contractual obligation with Parks if they are not a partner of the club.

Who owns Parks of Hamilton?

If the league was sponsored by Cala Homes then I'd imagine Stewart Milne would have been raging. We never had Stewart Milne group as a sponsor.

Stewarty wouldn't have had the balls to refuse to wear the sponsors name on the sleeve though.

[AJF]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

Who owns Parks of Hamilton?

If the league was sponsored by Cala Homes then I'd imagine Stewart Milne would have been raging. We never had Stewart Milne group as a sponsor.

Stewarty wouldn't have had the balls to refuse to wear the sponsors name on the sleeve though.

We know who owns Parks of Hamilton, but my point is that the reports going about state that Rangers are contesting the Cinch branding due to it breaching a prior commercial contractual obligation. I don't think it would be enough to contest this point if it was just a case that Douglas Park wasn't happy about it. There would need to be a commercial contractual obligation between Rangers and Parks of Hamilton for them to contest it.

I'm not saying there isn't one, just that it doesn't appear that there is one going by our own website.

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

We know who owns Parks of Hamilton, but my point is that the reports going about state that Rangers are contesting the Cinch branding due to it breaching a prior commercial contractual obligation. I don't think it would be enough to contest this point if it was just a case that Douglas Park wasn't happy about it. There would need to be a commercial contractual obligation between Rangers and Parks of Hamilton for them to contest it.

I'm not saying there isn't one, just that it doesn't appear that there is one going by our own website.

Enjoy your day.

[TheScarf]

Isn't the issue Rangers are now breaching their contractual obligation of not advertising the SPFL's sponsor as they're a direct competitor of the Chairman's company?

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Isn't the issue Rangers are now breaching their contractual obligation of not advertising the SPFL's sponsor as they're a direct competitor of the Chairman's company?

I don't think so, but again, I could be wrong. This is a snippet from one of the articles that was posted previously:

"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"

This seems to suggest that by carrying the Cinch advertising it would breach a contractual obligation Rangers have with an existing partner. It seems that Rangers are saying they've already entered into an agreement with a company that prevents them carrying the Cinch branding, for whatever reason.

Edited August 4, 2021 by AJF

[topcat(The most tip top)]

9 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Who owns Parks of Hamilton?

If the league was sponsored by Cala Homes then I'd imagine Stewart Milne would have been raging. We never had Stewart Milne group as a sponsor.

Stewarty wouldn't have had the balls to refuse to wear the sponsors name on the sleeve though.

Of course if a commercial middleweight like Aberdeen were to do something like this then it wouldn’t have quite the same impact on the value of the deal to the sponsor and if a league sponsor wasn’t getting their branding displayed in Falkirk or Kelty they probably wouldn’t give a toss

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Of course if a commercial middleweight like Aberdeen were to do something like this then it wouldn’t have quite the same impact on the value of the deal to the sponsor and if a league sponsor wasn’t getting their branding displayed in Falkirk or Kelty they probably wouldn’t give a toss

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The point you are making is a valid one, but you also seem to be disregarding the fact that for Rangers to contest it under Rule I7 as stated above, there needs to be a prior commercial contract that would be breached if we carried the Cinch advertising.

Rangers wouldn't be able to contest it if it was simply a case of Douglas Park being unhappy a competitor is getting advertising via Rangers.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

It's just Rangers being awkward, throwing their weight about and trying to pick a fight with the SPFL because they don't like the way the SPFL is run. Not liking the way the SPFL is run is of course a very valid opinion. Trying to trash a league wide sponsorship deal is the wrong way to go about it.

The most likely outcome here is that Rangers quietly back down and the whole trying to scupper a sponsorship deal that could adversely affect some of the other 41 clubs is completely memory holed by their fans and our media.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Frank Sobotka said:

It's just Rangers being awkward, throwing their weight about and trying to pick a fight with the SPFL because they don't like the way the SPFL is run. Not liking the way the SPFL is run is of course a very valid opinion. Trying to trash a league wide sponsorship deal is the wrong way to go about it.

The most likely outcome here is that Rangers quietly back down and the whole trying to scupper a sponsorship deal that could adversely affect some of the other 41 clubs is completely memory holed by their fans and our media.

Yes, it is like a very minor administrative dispute that has been seen as an opportunity to publicly discredit the league to make some sort of point about the running of the league. 

Except everybody loses when such shite is played out in the tabloids. 

 

[Alert Mongoose]

It seems to me that The Rangers still hold the view that for several years Lawell and Celtic were running the SFA/SPFL and they won’t rest until the usurp them in that role. Scottish football really needs to work out a way that both can leave before we can ever move forward.

[oneteaminglasgow]

9 minutes ago, AJF said:

I don't think so, but again, I could be wrong. This is a snippet from one of the articles that was posted previously:

"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"

This seems to suggest that by carrying the Cinch advertising it would breach a contractual obligation Rangers have with an existing partner. It seems that Rangers are saying they've already entered into an agreement with a company that prevents them carrying the Cinch branding, for whatever reason.

I saw that too, and then I had a look at the companies listed as official or associate partners on the Rangers website and I can’t work out which of them it could possibly be - like, none of them are in any way competitors of cinch or even remotely related to cinch, unless NordVPN or Unibet are quietly doing second hand car sales on the side. 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

It seems to me that The Rangers still hold the view that for several years Lawell and Celtic were running the SFA/SPFL and they won’t rest until the usurp them in that role. Scottish football really needs to work out a way that both can leave before we can ever move forward.

We need the B teams set on fire and extinguished with conc. H₂SO₄ first.

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

The point you are making is a valid one, but you also seem to be disregarding the fact that for Rangers to contest it under Rule I7 as stated above, there needs to be a prior commercial contract that would be breached if we carried the Cinch advertising.

Rangers wouldn't be able to contest it if it was simply a case of Douglas Park being unhappy a competitor is getting advertising via Rangers.

I agree that there would need to be another commercial contract being breached to invoke that rule. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an exclusive sponsorship deal though. There could be a negative undertaking in a loan agreement or even in a directorship agreement. 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I saw that too, and then I had a look at the companies listed as official or associate partners on the Rangers website and I can’t work out which of them it could possibly be - like, none of them are in any way competitors of cinch or even remotely related to cinch, unless NordVPN or Unibet are quietly doing second hand car sales on the side. 

I done the same, which is why I noticed Parks isn't listed anywhere. The only thing that I could see any minute correlation could potentially be our sleeve sponsor, Tomket Tires if there is any stipulations in their contract about other automotive companies, but I admit that is reaching quite far.

I've tried to make it clear that I'm not for one second saying it isn't to do with Parks, the likelihood is it may well be, I'm just saying that it's not clear as of yet and Rangers claim there is a contractual breach if they carry the Cinch sponsorship. Whether they successfully argue that point or not, is an entirely different matter.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Also, if Rangers have an issue, they should come out and clarify it rather than this disingenuous nonsense.

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I agree that there would need to be another commercial contract being breached to invoke that rule. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an exclusive sponsorship deal though. There could be a negative undertaking in a loan agreement or even in a directorship agreement. 

Correct. My knowledge on what would constitute as a commercial contract breach is non-existent. I'm only going by the reports thus far and if Rangers were able to successfully argue that there is a breach, then I don't see why issue would be taken with Rangers if there are provisions in the SPFL rules that specifically allow them to disregard the Cinch sponsorship if it damages an existing commercial contract.

Again though, it's a big "if" they can successfully argue it.

[Ric]

12 minutes ago, AJF said:

We know who owns Parks of Hamilton, but my point is that the reports going about state that Rangers are contesting the Cinch branding due to it breaching a prior commercial contractual obligation. I don't think it would be enough to contest this point if it was just a case that Douglas Park wasn't happy about it. There would need to be a commercial contractual obligation between Rangers and Parks of Hamilton for them to contest it.

I'm not saying there isn't one, just that it doesn't appear that there is one going by our own website.

You see here is the problem, if this was a club not known for over egging the pudding, not putting out pointless sabre rattling statements or not insinuating that there is a national agenda against their club then I would be more willing to take things on face value. Perhaps there is some legal loophole Ranger's lawyers have found, perhaps Doncaster has made a rip roaring c**t of things, perhaps....

...but the problem then is Rangers are a club known for over egging the pudding, for putting out pointless statements and for insinuating a country wide conspiracy against them.