alta-pete Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Clown Job said: Both can be stupid Or Rangers decided - and they’re perfectly entitled with no reservation/declaration of sleeve sponsorship in the SPFL rules - that the SPFL aren’t the greatest negotiators and instead to maximise their own revenue stream. Edited August 4, 2021 by alta-pete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyellowbox Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 13 minutes ago, alta-pete said: My take: Rangers agreed a sleeve sponsorship with Tomket. Maybe not surprisingly Tomket’s deal is contingent on them being the only advertising on the sleeve. Doncaster moots deal with cinch for sleeve advertising and Robertson goes (as he says in his letter) ‘eh, haud on, I’m not sure we’ve that space available for sale’. Doncaster does the deal anyway. Tomket kick up a stink about sharing space they had exclusive rights to and here we are. Park’s conspiracy theories are a big stretch IMO, particularly given the competing brands from other sectors that have advertised across Scottish football for so many years. But Rangers like every other single person involved in Scottish football has known for years that the league logo, including sponsor is on the sleeve of the kits. That has been true every year since 2012 and for probably 20 years under their previous guise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, alta-pete said: Or maybe stupid of SPFL not to ensure space was always to be made available on teams shirts for the league sponsors? The league badge has always been on team shirts going way back before the SPL. 1 minute ago, Ludo*1 said: To be fair, out of the 8 year we've been under the SPFL umbrella, we've not had a league sponsor in 3 of them. We got Ladbrokes in 2015 and got them to agree an extension. The league badge, even when there was no sponsor, is always on the kits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Or maybe stupid of SPFL not to ensure space was always to be made available on teams shirts for the league sponsors? Maybe the SPFL weren't stupid. SPFL rules and regulations, G46. Shirts to Bear(sic) logos. I'm pretty sure this rule, or something very like it, was in action before 2020 when Rangers signed the contract with Tomket Tyres. If this issue really is all about the shirt sleeve logos, Rangers are going to get humped in arbitration. Shirts to Bear Logo(s) G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board. Edited August 4, 2021 by Aim Here 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Just now, alta-pete said: Or Rangers decided - and we’re perfectly entitled with no reservation/declaration in the SPFL rules - that the SPFL aren’t the greatest negotiators and instead to maximise their own revenue stream. The SPFL is like a union when it comes to collective agreements on things such as league sponsorship deals Only really works if everyone is in it What you’re doing doesn’t only undermine the leagues, but also makes it much more difficult going forward to secure a better deal Unless of course RFC want to see everyone go it alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: Rangers seem to think they have a fairly solid case here though with the clause they are referring to. If they think that they are idiots. It is in the rule book Quote 2 SHIRT SLEEVES Rule G46: If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-Off matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the board. The RIGHT sleeve on each shirt of all Players in a League Match and Play-Off Match must carry the logo designated by the League or League sponsor. The LEFT sleeve on each shirt of all Players in a League Match and Play-Off Match may carry a Club sponsor or advertiser. The area of the sponsor or advertiser should not exceed 100cm2. It is recommended that the height of the left sleeve sponsor area does not exceed 10cm. If a Club does not wish to use the left sleeve for a sponsor or advertiser at the time of the first league match, the left sleeve area can be left blank and a sponsor can be added during the season at such time that a commercial sponsor is arranged by the Club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Maybe the SPFL weren't stupid. SPFL rules and regulations, G46. Shirts to Bear(sic) logos. If this issue really is all about the shirt sleeve logos, Rangers are going to get humped in arbitration. Shirts to Bear Logo(s) G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play-Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board. Fair enough. My hot take resolved in well under an hour. I’ll bow out for now… Edited August 4, 2021 by alta-pete 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 If Rangers don't want the Cinch branding, then they can simply go without their share of the prize money being supplied by Cinch. The idea that one club out of 42 should be able to veto a league sponsorship deal is ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, Clown Job said: But they must have known any SPFL sponsor would be on the sleeve badge They have been since the SPL split back in the 90’s The powers that be at the SPFL must also have known about the rules surrounding why/how a club can refuse to advertise any sponsor as well though? If they haven’t discussed this in depth with a club whose lack of involvement would likely be a dealbreaker for the sponsor then that is a huge error from the SPFL and a lack of due diligence on their part. I suspect Rangers’ stance has nothing to do with Parks Motor Group and everything to do with the numerous partnerships they’ve entered into in recent times with other companies. If they’re trying to sell advertising space at a premium their bargaining position weakens significantly if Cinch are getting space at a pittance. (I’m purely speculating but it makes sense..) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 7 minutes ago, Clown Job said: As for the Charlie Adam comments, I just think it’s a bit strange that a player would be commenting on this publicly, especially as it’s not his club who are refusing to wear the sponsorship patch That's my bug bear about him. Darren O'Dea was another that could never just shut his pus about Celtic in the media when with us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: If they think that they are idiots. It is in the rule book Touche! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 11 minutes ago, Frank Sobotka said: It seems like this could all be resolved by making Charlie Adam the face of Cinch and making him donate his fee to Rangers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 21 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Park’s conspiracy theories are a big stretch IMO, particularly given the competing brands from other sectors that have advertised across Scottish football for so many years. It's hardly a conspiracy theory, given that this has been the cause of dispute reported in the tabloid press ever since the weekend. If Sevco dispute that this is the case then they have more than enough official and off the record channels to get the story straight. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Frank Sobotka said: If Rangers don't want the Cinch branding, then they can simply go without their share of the prize money being supplied by Cinch. The idea that one club out of 42 should be able to veto a league sponsorship deal is ridiculous. I think the issue is that cinch wouldn't be happy with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Just now, thepundit said: The powers that be at the SPFL must also have known about the rules surrounding why/how a club can refuse to advertise any sponsor as well though? If they haven’t discussed this in depth with a club whose lack of involvement would likely be a dealbreaker for the sponsor then that is a huge error from the SPFL and a lack of due diligence on their part. I suspect Rangers’ stance has nothing to do with Parks Motor Group and everything to do with the numerous partnerships they’ve entered into in recent times with other companies. If they’re trying to sell advertising space at a premium their bargaining position weakens significantly if Cinch are getting space at a pittance. (I’m purely speculating but it makes sense..) The powers that be are the clubs themselves It’s the clubs who own the SPFL The same clubs who decided to dissolve the SFL to create the SPFL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, thepundit said: The powers that be at the SPFL must also have known about the rules surrounding why/how a club can refuse to advertise any sponsor as well though? If they haven’t discussed this in depth with a club whose lack of involvement would likely be a dealbreaker for the sponsor then that is a huge error from the SPFL and a lack of due diligence on their part. I suspect Rangers’ stance has nothing to do with Parks Motor Group and everything to do with the numerous partnerships they’ve entered into in recent times with other companies. If they’re trying to sell advertising space at a premium their bargaining position weakens significantly if Cinch are getting space at a pittance. (I’m purely speculating but it makes sense..) What rules are these? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Clown Job said: The powers that be are the clubs themselves It’s the clubs who own the SPFL The same clubs who decided to dissolve the SFL to create the SPFL Should clarify, the SPFL board I was referring to and those in charge of agreeing the sponsorship. Im guessing one of the main reasons Cinch wanted this deal was for the brand exposure the top 2 clubs provide on the telly every week. Might have been an idea to ensure there was no issues beforehand. Maybe I am giving the SPFL too much credit here… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree house tam Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Can we really expect anything less from someone who drinks in the Dolphin? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, tree house tam said: Can we really expect anything less from someone who drinks in the Dolphin? Rylan drinks in The Dolphin? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 I thought The Dolphin shut years ago: 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.