Jump to content

Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24


Recommended Posts

 
RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.
The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.n
A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL
 
For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.
“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.
“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.
“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game
 

I wonder if this is nothing to do with Rangers per say, does Parks have a commercial contract direct with sfa/spfl? Is that what the cinch deal is breaching?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, steelmen said:


I wonder if this is nothing to do with Rangers per say, does Parks have a commercial contract direct with sfa/spfl? Is that what the cinch deal is breaching?

That was my first thought when I saw that statement. For as long as I’ve been about the big teams have been ferried about in Parks buses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bennett said:

 

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has clinched a Court victory that will prevent the Scottish FA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Premiership champions.

Rangers are embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute with the SPFL regarding an £8million sponsorship deal with online used car retailer cinch.

Ibrox chiefs have refused to sanction the use of cinch branding on the shirts that Steven Gerrard’s side have worn in their three Premiership fixtures so far this season or on advertising and media boards.
The SPFL referred the case to the SFA for arbitration earlier this month but Park has now played his legal hand and brought a halt to proceedings after a hearing on Monday.n
A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL

 

For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.
“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.
“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.
“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game

 

Oooft.

I think you said it would be ridiculous if Rangers objection to Cinch was due to it being a direct competitor to Parks or at least something to that effect.

Whats your thoughts now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steelmen said:


I wonder if this is nothing to do with Rangers per say, does Parks have a commercial contract direct with sfa/spfl? Is that what the cinch deal is breaching?

 

Would a seperate Parks deal with the league/association affect Rangers though?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers statement. 

 

TODAY'S court ruling once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL.

These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach.

The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most entertaining part of the many club statements they have released about the Cinch deal is the repeated phrase 'we have complied with the SPFL's own rules,' when what they actually mean is 'we have complied with our own interpretation of the SPFL's rules and ignored the parts which don't suit our narrative'.

Top shithousery, and it's given their fans and defenders in the press plenty of ammunition, even though it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ribzanelli said:

True, but if it is true that Rangers haven’t shown the contract to the SPFL then how would they know who to invite?

Solid point in fairness.

 

if they just gave them a redacted version of the contract under the premise of it being disclosed in confidence we wouldn’t have this mess.

Instead of “we have a contract that causes a conflict of interest with this sponsor”

 

’can we see it just to confirm?’

 

”naw.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ribzanelli said:

True, but if it is true that Rangers haven’t shown the contract to the SPFL then how would they know who to invite?

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 

 

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 
 
" “We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"
 
 

If this a contract between parks and Rangers then they really aren’t an interested party in the arbitration.

This dispute is between the spfl and Rangers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bennett said:

This suggests that we did make the spfl aware of the identity of the 3rd party and asked for them to be included in the arbitration process. 

 

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties"

 

 

Yeah maybe. I think the fact we can debate it on here though proves that Rangers are being deliberately opaque, given that Parks doesn’t seem to be on their list of sponsors and have no evident sponsorship hoardings. No doubt SPFL are less than competent but not sure Rangers can be given the benefit of the doubt neither given their track record of poor transparency and hollow statements. Time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steelmen said:


If this a contract between parks and Rangers then they really aren’t an interested party in the arbitration.

This dispute is between the spfl and Rangers.

That's an arguable point, but the judge has ruled the other way on it, so it's testably false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...