New SPFL sponsor

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Which is ridiculous in it's own right.

I don't disagree.

[TommyDickFingers]

58 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

@AJF continuing his admirable(sort of) but ultimately useless crusade to convince people rangers aren’t a rabble of insufferable c***s. 

I have my doubts he is a real The Rangers fan tbqh. Seems far too normal and balanced, the antithesis of a ***.

 

[kingjoey]

1 hour 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.

So the SPFL should not put a sponsorship contract in place to benefit the 42 member clubs, because 1 club says they can’t. Is that what Rangers are saying?

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

So the SPFL should not put a sponsorship contract in place to benefit the 42 member clubs, because 1 club says they can’t. Is that what Rangers are saying?

I don't think so, no. I think they are saying per their interpretation of the rules, that Rangers are not obligated to grant Cinch certain rights due to an existing commercial deal.

[John MacLean]

17 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Again, that's not what he's said. He's said, 'The only way you can do that is all getting in a room and talking. There is no point in emails and doing it through the press.'

Your last sentence is spot on though.

To be fair, I'm all in favour of Dundee not conducting their business via email. 

[ropy]

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

I don't think so, no. I think they are saying per their interpretation of the rules, that Rangers are not obligated to grant Cinch certain rights due to an existing commercial deal.

Certain rights or any rights?

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, ropy said:

Certain rights or any rights?

Looking at the letter from Robertson it mentioned "many rights", so presumably there may be some that can still be fulfilled but I don't know for sure.

[craigkillie]

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).
The SPFL have then notified clubs of the discussions with Cinch, at which point Rangers have written to the SPFL informing them that due to the existing contract, they will be unable to provide Cinch with some of the rights associated with the sponsorship which Rangers believe is allowable based on Rule I7.
So, my personal thoughts are that Rangers have tried to look after themselves during a period where we've had no league sponsorship bringing in any money. You can argue that any deal they signed up to promising exclusivity is acting in bad faith, however there was no guarantee of league sponsorship and the onus should've been on the SPFL to inform Cinch of this during negotiations as far as I can tell. At that point, they may have been able to adjust the sponsorship amount to withdraw the value owed to Rangers given that they legally couldn't fulfil the sponsorship obligations.
If this is indeed what has happened, Rangers have acted within the SPFL's own rules. But again I will say this is just what I think may have happened based on what has been said by the SPFL and Rangers thus far. I'd have no problem with any Cinch money earmarked for us being withdrawn for the period that this exclusivity deal runs with whatever other company it is.

Surely this argument falls down on the fact that Rangers don't actually appear to have such a commercial deal? They've never announced one, they don't have anything on their shirts, and they don't have anything on their website. Surely the whole point of advertising would be that you actually advertise.

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Surely this argument falls down on the fact that Rangers don't actually appear to have such a commercial deal? They've never announced one, they don't have anything on their shirts, and they don't have anything on their website. Surely the whole point of advertising would be that you actually advertise.

Both Tomket Tires and Seko have advertising on our shirts, website and around the stadium so I'd guess it would be either of them.

Edited August 5, 2021 by AJF

[John MacLean]

So many red herrings, ahem, flying about. 

It's surely a power struggle pure and simple. On one side an utterly incompetent organisation led by an imbecile of a ceo. On the other, well, rangers. 

If so, I'm not sure who I want to lose more but I sure as hell don't want either to win. 

Is it not less about contractual obligations and shirt advertising and more that rangers think/have spotted a loophole within the SPFL rule book and are using that as an opportunity to undermine the SPFL while potentially increasing their power and influence over how the game in Scotland is governed?

 

[Leith Green]

42 minutes ago, AJF said:

I don't think so, no. I think they are saying per their interpretation of the rules, that Rangers are not obligated to grant Cinch certain rights due to an existing commercial deal.

Rangers were sponsored by a betting company at the same time as we had Ladbrokes as the league sponsor (and Betfred as the league cup sponsor, come to that).

It seems quite inconceivable that those negotiating sponsorship deals on behalf of your club were not

(a) aware of this, and

(b) able to adjust the wording of any newer deal in line with the 32Red one (which you have had since 2014 iirc).

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Rangers were sponsored by a betting company at the same time as we had Ladbrokes as the league sponsor (and Betfred as the league cup sponsor, come to that).

It seems quite inconceivable that those negotiating sponsorship deals on behalf of your club were not

(a) aware of this, and

(b) able to adjust the wording of any newer deal in line with the 32Red one (which you have had since 2014 iirc).

I agree. However our sponsorship deal with 32Red commenced when we already had a league sponsor (Ladbrokes) and therefore no exclusivity deal could be negotiated on that basis.

Tomket and Seko, I believe, were announced when we had no league sponsor which is why I am assuming there is now a conflict if by complying with certain parts of the Cinch deal it impacts on an existing commercial deal.

It could potentially be that either of these companies said to Rangers we will give you X% more for sponsorship/advertising if there is a form of exclusivity included. So Rangers being Rangers may have then said aye go on, knowing they were safe in doing so per the SPFL rules (if interpreted correctly, which is where I have my doubts).

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

I don't think so, no. I think they are saying per their interpretation of the rules, that Rangers are not obligated to grant Cinch certain rights due to an existing commercial deal.

If Rangers don’t grant cinch (small “c”) certain rights, cinch will almost certainly walk away, quite rightly, so Rangers know that they are riding roughshod over the finances of the vast majority of the SPFL. They are just a member of the SPFL, not the sole arbiter of the organisation.

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

If Rangers don’t grant cinch (small “c”) certain rights, cinch will almost certainly walk away, quite rightly, so Rangers know that they are riding roughshod over the finances of the vast majority of the SPFL. They are just a member of the SPFL, not the sole arbiter of the organisation.

But this isn't something that has just come to be an issue after the deal with cinch was signed. Rangers informed the SPFL of this before a deal was struck and they argue the SPFL should have then made cinch aware. If cinch subsequently walk away that is on the SPFL (only if Rangers are correct with their assertions that they have acted within the SPFL's own rules).

[steelmen]

17 minutes ago, AJF said:

I agree. However our sponsorship deal with 32Red commenced when we already had a league sponsor (Ladbrokes) and therefore no exclusivity deal could be negotiated on that basis.

Tomket and Seko, I believe, were announced when we had no league sponsor which is why I am assuming there is now a conflict if by complying with certain parts of the Cinch deal it impacts on an existing commercial deal.

It could potentially be that either of these companies said to Rangers we will give you X% more for sponsorship/advertising if there is a form of exclusivity included. So Rangers being Rangers may have then said aye go on, knowing they were safe in doing so per the SPFL rules (if interpreted correctly, which is where I have my doubts).

This is where Rangers argument falls down, they couldn't sign an exclusivity deal for the sleeves as Rule ** says 'this sleeve is for the league logo;' we might not have had a sponsor last year but teams still wore the spfl logo on there, Rangers included.

 

[Valentino Bolognese]

There's only one man that has the legal brain, the gravitas and the specialist football sector knowledge to sort out this labyrinthine Gordian knot of a problem. 

Get Leslie Deans on the blower.

[ropy]

It cannot be an issue with the sleeves otherwise cinch would still appear in other locations, the banner when the teams enter the pitch and the interview boards.

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, steelmen said:

This is where Rangers argument falls down, they couldn't sign an exclusivity deal for the sleeves as Rule ** says 'this sleeve is for the league logo;' we might not have had a sponsor last year but teams still wore the spfl logo on there, Rangers included.

 

I get that, however It may not just be restricted to the sleeve sponsorship though. That absence of the sleeve sponsors last week may just be a casualty of the ongoing dispute until things are resolved one way or another. The sleeve sponsors may well be one of the rights that are allowed that Rangers alluded to, but they may have just decided to pull all cinch advertising until there is clarity.

[steelmen]

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

I get that, however It may not just be restricted to the sleeve sponsorship though. That absence of the sleeve sponsors last week may just be a casualty of the ongoing dispute until things are resolved one way or another. The sleeve sponsors may well be one of the rights that are allowed that Rangers alluded to, but they may have just decided to pull all cinch advertising until there is clarity.

I am not going to read through the rules of the SPFL but i am guessing there is also something in there, like with the shirts, about being allowed to advertise through out the stadium etc. That would also stop them signing excusive deals  for advertising around there, which they would be mad to as they want as many sponsors as possible.

it is all heading back to Parks motor group and not wanting to advertise a competitor.  I am sure the Motherwell team bus has a the league sponsor on it, granted it is a small board at the back and front of our Parks of Hamilton bus.

 

the fan in me says that Rangers should forfeit each game they don't wear the patch.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, 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.

Because Rangers are an SPFL member and as such party to an agreement to display the league sponsor's logo. 

They've apparently then entered into an agreement that restricts their ability to do something they've already signed up for. Exclusivity wasn't theirs to grant.