New SPFL sponsor

[Spikethedee]

Surely all clubs have to agree to abide by the rules of the competitions they are competing in? Agreeing to display the sponsorship agreed for the competition must surely be one of the most basic principles of this - companies won't invest money if they don't think they will get their name/logo mentioned or displayed as much as they should. Obviously, there should be procedures to change things that any club disagrees with, but it shouldn't be just refusing and putting out crappy statements.

In addition, agreeing to media coverage, interviews etc should also be a basic part of any agreement - if they don't want to speak to the BBC, they either leave the league or suck it up...

[HibeeJibee]

If a club can disregard the media terms, or the sponsor contract as they prefer their own with another firm - can other clubs disregard the TV deal and sell their games to other channels?

[Empty It]

Could Parks have made a bid for the sponsorship deal or would there be some conflict of interests rule preventing it?

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

Don’t know how accurate the figures are that are being quoted 

£40k a season to get advertised by Rangers/Celtic is a bargain. £40k a season probably isn’t too far off the going rate for most premier or big championship clubs. For the likes of Annan or Kelty it’s probably by far the most lucrative bit of sponsorship they have. 

For comparison purposes it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to average it out over all the clubs. Unless Rangers have suddenly become converted to a more equitable income distribution.

That’s clearly not an official source, but it’s not at all clear that £1k a game is “underselling” the package. 

[HibeeJibee]

11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

£40k a season to get advertised by Rangers/Celtic is a bargain. £40k a season probably isn’t too far off the going rate for most premier or big championship clubs. For the likes of Annan or Kelty it’s probably by far the most lucrative bit of sponsorship they have. 

For comparison purposes it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to average it out over all the clubs. Unless Rangers have suddenly become converted to a more equitable income distribution.

This.

Citing it as "£40,000 per club per season" is disingenous.

Rangers as 1/42 would receive 13.4% i.e. £215,000.

Kelty as 42/42 would receive 0.18% i.e. £3,000.

[Jacky1990]

33 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

This.

Citing it as "£40,000 per club per season" is disingenous.

Rangers as 1/42 would receive 13.4% i.e. £215,000.

Kelty as 42/42 would receive 0.18% i.e. £3,000.

I for one am shocked that Rangers would present fudged financial numbers to suit their own agenda.

Shocked I tell you.

[Ludo*1]

Just to play devil's advocate, I have absolutely no idea what's going on, but this seems to be what the Rangers fans are leaping to as their defence:

 

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

2 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, I have absolutely no idea what's going on, but this seems to be what the Rangers fans are leaping to as their defence:

 

They'll always jump to their defence as they seem to lap up this whole thing where their club just acts as obtuse as possible. 

#nosurrender etc etc etc.

[Have some faith in Magic]

I wonder how sure Davy Davy Dave is of his numbers. I am fairly sure he is talking pish. 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, I have absolutely no idea what's going on, but this seems to be what the Rangers fans are leaping to as their defence:

 

@HibeeJibee's figure of 215k is league games only, so £5.6k a game.

Last year rangers played 56 competitive games and a handful of friendlies, call it 60 in total. That works out at £8.3k a game. 

@Mr Positive, sometimes.mentioned that the longer commitment to the deal justified a 20% cut from previous years. Adjust Bitci deal for that, it's £6.7k a game. 

Other possible adjusting factors:

Bitci have obtained exclusive access to a lengthy sucker list to lap up rangers gift vouchers which they are badging as that new fangled crypto tokens. Adjust bitci down. 

Rangers deal covers potential CL group ties with international household names. Cinch deal covers at least three games against each of Dingwall Village and Almondvale Retail Park. Adjust bitci down. 

And in fairness, i was going to suggest adjusting cinch down for being on backgrounds, but i see bitci behond Gerrard at a presser, so won't. 

 

I'm not saying that the Cinch deal is a great deal. The evidence presented doesn't show it is a bad deal. 

There's also no reason to think that online speculation from rapeepul is the actual basis of the dispute. 

[Mark Connolly]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

@HibeeJibee's figure of 215k is league games only, so £5.6k a game.

Last year rangers played 56 competitive games and a handful of friendlies, call it 60 in total. That works out at £8.3k a game. 

@Mr Positive, sometimes.mentioned that the longer commitment to the deal justified a 20% cut from previous years. Adjust Bitci deal for that, it's £6.7k a game. 

Other possible adjusting factors:

Bitci have obtained exclusive access to a lengthy sucker list to lap up rangers gift vouchers which they are badging as that new fangled crypto tokens. Adjust bitci down. 

Rangers deal covers potential CL group ties with international household names. Cinch deal covers at least three games against each of Dingwall Village and Almondvale Retail Park. Adjust bitci down. 

And in fairness, i was going to suggest adjusting cinch down for being on backgrounds, but i see bitci behond Gerrard at a presser, so won't. 

 

I'm not saying that the Cinch deal is a great deal. The evidence presented doesn't show it is a bad deal. 

There's also no reason to think that online speculation from rapeepul is the actual basis of the dispute. 

They wouldn't wear the cinch patches or use the cinch SPFL advertising boards in European games though, they'd have the competition equivalent. Same probably for League Cup and Scottish Cup games.

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

There's also factors like Covid and the fact Cinch won't have the £££ the likes of Ladbrokes have either. 

If the options were also... Cinch or Cinch then it also doesn't put the SPFL in a position of strength when negotiating either. 

[Aim Here]

Given that Rangers are refusing on the grounds of insufficient money coming in, the way to deal with them should be to ask Douglas Park what a fair sponsorship deal would be, work out the Rangers proportion of that amount, double that and make that their fine. The SPFL can reimburse Cinch AND provide fair funding of the league from that. Hopefully the SPFL rulebook allows for something like this.

[coprolite]

18 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

They wouldn't wear the cinch patches or use the cinch SPFL advertising boards in European games though, they'd have the competition equivalent. Same probably for League Cup and Scottish Cup games.

Yes, that was the point. Cinch isn't sponsoring those and bitci is, so of course bitci would pay more. 

[RandomGuy.]

Just add  this to the list of things Rangers are fucking up behind the scenes, along with charging every journalist a fortune to enter Ibrox, plus banning any journalist who writes an article that criticises them in any way.

Jordan Campbell being banned from Ibrox was wild considering all he's done for the club.

Rangers fans should probably be up in arms as it looks mightily similar to the bollocks the Celtic board started doing when they got arrogant. 

[bennett]

Rangers,  spfl and cinch have all refused to comment on the situation, strange that posters are castigating Rangers when they don't know what the issue is.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 minutes ago, bennett said:

Rangers,  spfl and cinch have all refused to comment on the situation, strange that posters are castigating Rangers when they don't know what the issue is.

 

I tend to think the worst. I'm usually right.

[Jacky1990]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

Rangers,  spfl and cinch have all refused to comment on the situation, strange that posters are castigating Rangers when they don't know what the issue is.

 

They wont be commenting on it because I assume it is in the hands of lawyers seeing if Rangers are in breach of contract.

Got to ask why Rangers are going down the route of refusing to advertise when the percentage of income they'll get from domestic prize money will be nothing compared to club sponsorship and europe.

Its such a bizarre stance to be taking even if they think its a monumentally shite deal. 

Its hard enough attracting sponsors to Scottish football without one of its biggest selling points acting like over entitled children whenever their board dont approve of something.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

29 minutes ago, bennett said:

Rangers,  spfl and cinch have all refused to comment on the situation, strange that posters are castigating Rangers when they don't know what the issue is.

 

The issue is Rangers won't put the league sponsor on their strip like every other club.

[bennett]

10 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The issue is Rangers won't put the league sponsor on their strip like every other club.

It's from the sun so maybe not spot on but if it's in the rules...

 

" 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"