Aim Here Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Just now, AJF said: I honestly don't know, and nobody else other than Rangers and the SPFL seem to know either. My best guess at what has went on is that Rangers have signed a commercial deal with someone at a time there was no SPFL League Sponsor and the terms of that deal has stipulated some form of exclusivity (be that shirt sponsors, advertising at Ibrox or whatever). Thing is, the SPFL contract takes precedent over any rule of the 'I want exclusive use of the shirt sleeves' variety - since the right of the SPFL board to commandeer the sleeves is part of the SPFL rulebook, and Rangers have had a contract with the SPFL for as long as Rangers have existed. For Rangers not to be immediately booted into SFA arbitration punishment-land, the deal would have to be about this particular sponsor, since the incompatibility only occurred after that deal was finalized. And it's hard to see which of Rangers' current roster of partners would have an issue with cinch. It's not easy to think of a hypothetical case of Rangers acting in good faith here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Clown Job said: If they realised this “loophole” existed in the first place, you’d like to think as a member club they would have pointed this out, tried to get it resolved Not kept it quite to use it to their own advantage while screwing over the rest of the SPFL There is a doctrine in US law - called laches - which nukes lawsuits where the plaintiff keeps an alleged infringement quiet until it's tactically useful for them to sue. Recently, it was used to nuke a ton of those 'Trump stole the election' lawsuits, where Republican activists suddenly decided they didn't like the procedures for the 2020 election only after they found out Trump had lost. I'm not sure what, if any, equivalent there is in Scots law. Edited August 5, 2021 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 19 minutes ago, AJF said: I completely appreciate why this looks bad on the club, but if I could frame it in a different way and ask a question: if the SPFL had failed to secure a league sponsor this season (as they failed to do for last season), would any commercial deal Rangers entered into be considered in a negative light whatsoever as it is now? Surely it would just be viewed as an instance of the club acting in it's best interests? I think the key term is 'last season'. Rangers would be quite within their rights to enter into a one year deal covering the sponsor less period. They are totally not within their rights to enter into a multi year deal that conflicts with any potential league sponsor going forward. The SPFL are involved so I don't doubt there is a catastrophic level of mismanagement over at their place on this but if Rangers want to make changes in how the game is run then taking food out the hands of hungry bairns doesn't seem like an especially clever way to do it. Honestly, how much advantage do Rangers and Celtic want over Scottish football? They never stop whining. Ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: Thing is, the SPFL contract takes precedent over any rule of the 'I want exclusive use of the shirt sleeves' variety - since the right of the SPFL board to commandeer the sleeves is part of the SPFL rulebook, and Rangers have had a contract with the SPFL for as long as Rangers have existed. For Rangers not to be immediately booted into SFA arbitration punishment-land, the deal would have to be about this particular sponsor, since the incompatibility only occurred after that deal was finalized. And it's hard to see which of Rangers' current roster of partners would have an issue with cinch. It's not easy to think of a hypothetical case of Rangers acting in good faith here. And I think that's where Rangers case will make or break - it will come down to their interpretation of rule I7 which they believe absolves them of the obligation to carry the league sponsorship if it breaches an existing contract. I have no faith in the legal prowess of Rangers given our track record, so, would I be at all surprised to find out we've made an arse of it and misinterpreted the rule? Absolutely not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said: I think the key term is 'last season'. Rangers would be quite within their rights to enter into a one year deal covering the sponsor less period. They are totally not within their rights to enter into a multi year deal that conflicts with any potential league sponsor going forward. The SPFL are involved so I don't doubt there is a catastrophic level of mismanagement over at their place on this but if Rangers want to make changes in how the game is run then taking food out the hands of hungry bairns doesn't seem like an especially clever way to do it. Honestly, how much advantage do Rangers and Celtic want over Scottish football? They never stop whining. Ever. If Rangers have no right to enter into a deal covering a period of more than a season, then why would there be a provision in Rule I7 that seemingly allows clubs to refrain from providing sponsorship rights if it infringes on an existing contract? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Imagine if every club entered into deal last season which effectively prevented the SPFL from signing a title sponsor, what would happen then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 36 minutes ago, AJF said: From what Rangers are saying though, is that the contract they agreed with the yet unknown company was agreed prior to the Cinch deal the SPFL signed up to. Rangers have also said they made the SPFL aware of the conflict so I don’t think it can be portrayed as Rangers signing up to 2 incompatible contracts at all. It can only be that given what Rangers are saying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ginaro said: Imagine if every club entered into deal last season which effectively prevented the SPFL from signing a title sponsor, what would happen then? Then I'd imagine there wouldn't be a need for a league sponsor if they were getting sponsorship from elsewhere. It would come down to each clubs individual negotiating to determine what kind of deal they got. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, AJF said: If Rangers have no right to enter into a deal covering a period of more than a season, then why would there be a provision in Rule I7 that seemingly allows clubs to refrain from providing sponsorship rights if it infringes on an existing contract? I think the issue is with your parsing of the " They are totally not within their rights to enter into a multi year deal that conflicts with any potential league sponsor going forward. " and the ambiguity with the term 'any'. Some theories are of the nature that there is no sponsor that the SPFL could pick that would allow Rangers to comply (like if there was an exclusivity deal with Tomket covering all shirt sleeve advertising). The law , the SPFL and the other clubs are surely going to take a dim view of that, and rule 17 is surely not going to apply, since it's entirely incompatible with the SPFL/Rangers contract, not just the SPFL/League sponsor one. If there's an incompatibility with one or more specific sponsors, that would be the useful use of rule 17. Edited August 5, 2021 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, coprolite said: It can only be that given what Rangers are saying? How so? From what I can see, Rangers themselves entered into 1 commercial agreement. They notified the SPFL of this agreement prior to the Cinch deal being agreed. It wasn't Rangers who entered into the deal with Cinch, it was the SPFL executive who signed the deal with Cinch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Doesn't Robertson think that perhaps his club, and not the SPFL, have sought to make the issue public, by appearing last Saturday in jerseys lacking the league sponsor's logos? I wouldn't waste any more time reading his tripe, if that is an opening remark. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 What really is bizzare is that Rangers are fairly regularly elected on to the board of the SPFL and still act the c**t when there. Why do clubs vote them in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Just now, AJF said: How so? From what I can see, Rangers themselves entered into 1 commercial agreement. They notified the SPFL of this agreement prior to the Cinch deal being agreed. It wasn't Rangers who entered into the deal with Cinch, it was the SPFL executive who signed the deal with Cinch. Rangers have a deal with the SPFL too - a deal that takes precedence - and it has to abide by the SPFL's rulebook. There is scope for handling conflicts between the Rangers/Third Party sponsorship deal and the SPFL/League sponsor deal, via that rule 17, but it's obviously unresolved so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, 101 said: What really is bizzare is that Rangers are fairly regularly elected on to the board of the SPFL and still act the c**t when there. Why do clubs vote them in? I believe there is an agreement that Rangers and Celtic alternate years to have a representative on the SPFL board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Just now, AJF said: I believe there is an agreement that Rangers and Celtic alternate years to have a representative on the SPFL board. Surely still needs votes from the other clubs. FWIW I would rather neither Celtic or Rangers were in the board of the SPFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: Rangers have a deal with the SPFL too - a deal that takes precedence - and it has to abide by the SPFL's rulebook. There is scope for handling conflicts between the Rangers/Third Party sponsorship deal and the SPFL/League sponsor deal, via that rule 17, but it's obviously unresolved so far. Is the deal between Rangers and the SPFL a commercial deal though? It seems as though that would be considered as a membership rather than a commercial contract, but I'm just guessing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Its interesting that Rangers wont revel which contract it infringes. The Tomko one made sense if they have given them excusive access to the sleeves (did they have it on both sleeves at the weekend?) but that wouldn't stop them from having Cinch advertised around the stadium. The Parks issue makes sense but that is petty AF as it seems they don't have a publicly announced deal with Parks' motor group. ps Charlie Adam wow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, 101 said: Surely still needs votes from the other clubs. FWIW I would rather neither Celtic or Rangers were in the board of the SPFL. I'm not sure how it works to be honest mate. As far as I remember Rangers and Celtic have alternated so I don't know if this is some kind of rule they adopted or, if as you suggest, needs membership votes to approve it each season. If it does require a vote, I am surprised we haven't been turfed out before now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Just now, AJF said: I'm not sure how it works to be honest mate. As far as I remember Rangers and Celtic have alternated so I don't know if this is some kind of rule they adopted or, if as you suggest, needs membership votes to approve it each season. If it does require a vote, I am surprised we haven't been turfed out before now Needs a vote if enough folk apply it could be the case that folk don't apply if there are enough contenders 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 20 minutes ago, AJF said: I believe there is an agreement that Rangers and Celtic alternate years to have a representative on the SPFL board. Which is ridiculous in it's own right. 3 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.