New SPFL sponsor

[tree house tam]

7 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

Rylan drinks in The Dolphin?

He's more of a Seagate kinda guy.

[Fife Saint]

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 sleeve badge is a fundamental rule in the membership though, it's not a standalone deal. Rangers signed up to that membership rule.

Their argument seems to stem from a broader clause about conflicting branding. Their doesn't appear to be a sub-clause covering the objection to the sleeve branding. They conflict and i think they think they have the SPFL by the balls in testing it.

[Fife Saint]

The sleeve badge is a fundamental rule in the membership though, it's not a standalone deal. Rangers signed up to that membership rule.

Their argument seems to stem from a broader clause about conflicting branding. Their doesn't appear to be a sub-clause covering the objection to the sleeve branding. They conflict and in think they think they have the SPFL by the balls in testing it.

They also raised the issue a few months ago and had no feedback and the SPFL cracked on.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Fife Saint said:

3 minutes ago, Fife Saint said:

The sleeve badge is a fundamental rule in the membership though, it's not a standalone deal. Rangers signed up to that membership rule.

Their argument seems to stem from a broader clause about conflicting branding. Their doesn't appear to be a sub-clause covering the objection to the sleeve branding. They conflict and in think they think they have the SPFL by the balls in testing it.

They also raised the issue a few months ago and had no feedback and the SPFL cracked on.

Did they raise the issue of changing the SPFL rules?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

29 minutes ago, virginton said:

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. 

Maybe they are having trouble with their usual propaganda channels after they decided to charge newspapers a £25K annual fee to attend press conferences.

[Fife Saint]

Did they raise the issue of changing the SPFL rules?

Not that I'm aware of. That's my point. Charlie Adam seems to be the only person suggesting this out of nowhere.

[Sergeant Wilson]

13 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Did they raise the issue of changing the SPFL rules?

They ROARED it in the Daily Record.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

The SPL/ SPFL Premiership has had the title sponsors printed on sleeve patches since at least 1999, so it shouldn't have come as a huge surprise to Rangers that they have to wear cinch patches and display cinch branding around Ibrox as part of the new deal.

Are they going to try and pull the same stunt with any of UEFA's sponsors if they qualify for the UCL group stage?

Edited August 4, 2021 by Sherrif John Bunnell

[101]

I'm a bit worried that Charlie Adam gets broadcasting gigs when he seems to think the SPFL is the top flight.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Charlie should can this vague advocating for the OF pish tbh. It's a full body fucking minter.

[parsforlife]

24 minutes ago, 101 said:

I'm a bit worried that Charlie Adam gets broadcasting gigs when he seems to think the SPFL is the top flight.

He’s the next in line for people mistaking being able to kick a ball about quite well for actual intelligence.

Most mainstream pundits would lose their job if asked to get a 50% score on 10 question quiz.

1) what is the spfl?

2) have you read the laws of the game recently?

3). Who are the juniors?

4) Talk about one player outside the OF without finding a way to link them to the OF.

5) how many times can you say eh before admitting you don’t know?

6) correctly pronounce the name of any foreign player.

7)  after how many replays showing you are wrong do you admit it?

8 )  Is someone a better manager just cos you’re pally with them?

9) you are commenting on a game you don’t want to be at,  can you name the sides involved and the stadium accurately throughout?

10)  You have been asked a question on Scottish football structure, do you give a balanced point of view or just repeat whatever the old firm press releases say?

[AJF]

Regardless if Rangers were to reasonably assume that the SPFL would get a league sponsor, from what I gather, the fact that rule I7 seems to suggest that clubs are not obliged to carry the league sponsors branding should it breach an existing commercial contract means they are acting well within their rights to refuse, if they do indeed have a breach of an existing contract.

That is then totally on the SPFL for 1) allowing this exception and 2) not making Cinch aware of the possibility that Rangers could object to carrying their branding when Rangers advised them of it prior to the deal being signed with Cinch.

The fact that Rangers made them aware of the conflict prior to the new deal being signed and the SPFL proceeding with it would surely be reason for Rangers to believe they could use rule I7 to protect their existing contract (whomever that may be with)?

Edited August 4, 2021 by AJF

[AJF]

Apologies if it has been posted already, but here is Rangers’ letter to the clubs regarding the matter:

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Robertson is a fucking idiot btw.

Doncaster better start getting the fines dished out.

[bennett]

28 minutes ago, J.domingo said:

I don’t have time to read such gibberish from a club who are as commercially damaged as rangers. I’d love to see their ROI in the 10 year period ending April 2021 (let’s factor in the league triumph for good measure). 

Im only interested in the commercial side of Scottish soccer as I’m a Chelsea fan and provide business support to a club in the Scottish Premiership, but I see no commercial benefit of rangers to Scottish football.

cinch however are a London based growing brand, who operate in a sector of the market which is a shooting star, unlike the dead horse of whatever this Scottish business has to offer who attach themselves to rangers. I would be all for the cinch deal to commence with a view to a potential 10 year deal. The spfl have negotiated extremely well on this occasion! 

Hi Neil, I reckon that you deserve another bonus for your excellent negotiating skills. 

 

[coprolite]

3 hours 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..)

Rule I7a isn't a get out from the sponsorship logo rules. It's a get out from this requirement:

"the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company."

Now it could be argued that this includes making space available on strips for badges. 

It could also be argued that "the company" (ie the spfl) doesn't require access to the strips to put badges on. The company doesn't have an obligation to display the sponsorship. That's an obligation that the clubs have to each other/the company and indirectly to the sponsor. 

I assume Rangers favour the former. 

From the context it looks clear that the clause is intended to be about the spfl and broadcasters using club logos, image rights etc for promotion and broadcast deals. 

Rangers think they have a good case. Rangers lawyers had a cast iron case to extend season 19/20 remember. 

 

[Aim Here]

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It could also be argued that "the company" (ie the spfl) doesn't require access to the strips to put badges on. The company doesn't have an obligation to display the sponsorship. That's an obligation that the clubs have to each other/the company and indirectly to the sponsor.

How can they argue that when the SPFL rule G46 explicitly states that the league may compel teams to display the league sponsor logo on the strip sleeves? It's not like Rangers signed up to the SPFL rulebook after any of it's strip sponsors did. It's really hard to see how this is about the league sponsor logo being put on the Rangers strip - Rangers should have known well in advance that any contract it signed may require that. Either this strip sleeve stuff is a red herring, or Rangers legal advisers are really not doing their job.

I'm sceptical that it's merely about shirt advertising space. It might relate to an exclusivity deal with this particular league sponsor, but it's hard to see any run-of-the-mill sponsor deal with the known Rangers sponsors would preclude Rangers advertising a used car salesman. The only think I can think of is that Parks of Hamilton have concocted some bizarro we-supply-buses-AND-dictate-stadium-advertising-policy deal with Rangers designed specifically to drive a wedge between the clubs and the SPFL, and that's also far fetched.

[coprolite]

15 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

How can they argue that when the SPFL rule G46 explicitly states that the league may compel teams to display the league sponsor logo on the strip sleeves? It's not like Rangers signed up to the SPFL rulebook after any of it's strip sponsors did. It's really hard to see how this is about the league sponsor logo being put on the Rangers strip - Rangers should have known well in advance that any contract it signed may require that. Either this strip sleeve stuff is a red herring, or Rangers legal advisers are really not doing their job.

I'm sceptical that it's merely about shirt advertising space. It might relate to an exclusivity deal with this particular league sponsor, but it's hard to see any run-of-the-mill sponsor deal with the known Rangers sponsors would preclude Rangers advertising a used car salesman. The only think I can think of is that Parks of Hamilton have concocted some bizarro we-supply-buses-AND-dictate-stadium-advertising-policy deal with Rangers designed specifically to drive a wedge between the clubs and the SPFL, and that's also far fetched.

The argument you've quoted is the counter to what i presume is rangers view and is how i read the rules. 

The exclusion applies where the spfl need access to or to use rangers property or facilities for the SPFL to do something. Rangers can refuse such access. I'm saying that the exclusion doesn’t apply because the SPFL aren't requiring access to any property or facilities. The SPFL doesn't need to do anything with rangers property. They are requiring Rangers to do something. Which I7a doesn't exclude them from. 

The main thing that makes me think that this might not be the actual dispute is the spfl comments about delivering inventory. To my mind that's physical goods, which makes no sense in terms of sponsorship etc, unless it's industry jargon. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by coprolite
Ps-agree they can't escape the sponsorship rule

[Dee Man]

5 hours ago, J.domingo said:

I don’t have time to read such gibberish from a club who are as commercially damaged as rangers. I’d love to see their ROI in the 10 year period ending April 2021 (let’s factor in the league triumph for good measure). 

Im only interested in the commercial side of Scottish soccer as I’m a Chelsea fan and provide business support to a club in the Scottish Premiership, but I see no commercial benefit of rangers to Scottish football.

cinch however are a London based growing brand, who operate in a sector of the market which is a shooting star, unlike the dead horse of whatever this Scottish business has to offer who attach themselves to rangers. I would be all for the cinch deal to commence with a view to a potential 10 year deal. The spfl have negotiated extremely well on this occasion! 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I've only ever seen two of your posts and both of them are a lot of shite. 

[kingjoey]

6 hours ago, AJF said:

Apologies if it has been posted already, but here is Rangers’ letter to the clubs regarding the matter:

 

If Rangers are so hot on the SPFL rules, why has Stewart Robertson not quoted Rule G46, set out in full in an earlier post, as well?