steelmen Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, coprolite said: 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. Wonder if it was the same legal advisors that said they were free to sign the deal with Hummel.. look how that went. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 12 minutes ago, coprolite said: Because Rangers are an SPFL member and as such party to an agreement to display the league sponsor's logo. Subject to the rules already posted that state they do not have to display it if it would be to the detriment of existing contracts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 10 minutes ago, coprolite said: 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. And this is where it becomes confusing, because what you say is entirely plausible, but if there wasn't provision for teams to grant exclusivity of some sort, then why does Rule I7 even exist at all which seem to suggest that teams are not obliged to comply if it breaches an existing contract, do you know what I mean? It's like a chicken and the egg situation: There is an SPFL rule that states teams are not obliged to comply with the SPFL commercial deal if it breaches an existing one the club has, yet there's now suggestions teams cannot enter into commercial deals of their own that would prohibit them from complying with the SPFL's commercial deals. Surely, if that was the case, Rule I7 would be redundant, which I doubt it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Orbix said: Subject to the rules already posted that state they do not have to display it if it would be to the detriment of existing contracts. I don't think that's what that rule does. There is only a get out from providing property or facilities to the SPFL for the spfl to use to meet obligations. It is not a get out from any other obligations. You'd be stretching interpretation to make Rangers obligation to display logos an obligation to make property available to the spfl. Maybe the interpretation does stretch that far. I suspect many lawyers will be enriched before it’s decided. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, AJF said: And this is where it becomes confusing, because what you say is entirely plausible, but if there wasn't provision for teams to grant exclusivity of some sort, then why does Rule I7 even exist at all which seem to suggest that teams are not obliged to comply if it breaches an existing contract, do you know what I mean? It's like a chicken and the egg situation: There is an SPFL rule that states teams are not obliged to comply with the SPFL commercial deal if it breaches an existing one the club has, yet there's now suggestions teams cannot enter into commercial deals of their own that would prohibit them from complying with the SPFL's commercial deals. Surely, if that was the case, Rule I7 would be redundant, which I doubt it is. If for example, 20 years ago Rangers licensed rights to archive footage to a video producer they wouldn't need to make that available to sky via the spfl to promote the next bigotfest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, AJF said: And this is where it becomes confusing, because what you say is entirely plausible, but if there wasn't provision for teams to grant exclusivity of some sort, then why does Rule I7 even exist at all which seem to suggest that teams are not obliged to comply if it breaches an existing contract, do you know what I mean? It's like a chicken and the egg situation: There is an SPFL rule that states teams are not obliged to comply with the SPFL commercial deal if it breaches an existing one the club has, yet there's now suggestions teams cannot enter into commercial deals of their own that would prohibit them from complying with the SPFL's commercial deals. Surely, if that was the case, Rule I7 would be redundant, which I doubt it is. Because rule I7 is about IP and access not sponsorship obligations 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 6 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 think the main argument will be about cinch appearing on the electronic perimeter advertising boards. Noticed cinch adverts appearing quite a lot during the Killie v Ayr game on tv. Rangers probably don’t have a strong case on the sleeve logos but denying the SPFL facilities to use the electronic perimeter advertising boards on behalf of cinch is maybe more what the dispute is about. Although there won’t be that many live league games from Ibrox, there will be extended highlights every second week and that might be quite valuable to cinch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, coprolite said: If for example, 20 years ago Rangers licensed rights to archive footage to a video producer they wouldn't need to make that available to sky via the spfl to promote the next bigotfest. There was no Rangers 20 years ago to make such a deal - the SPFL rulebook postdates Rangers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Aim Here said: There was no Rangers 20 years ago to make such a deal - the SPFL rulebook postdates Rangers! I should have used one of the clubs with a decent history, like Livingston 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, AJF said: 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). How would you feel if you substitute “Montrose” for “Rangers”? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 8 minutes ago, TheBruce said: SPFL meeting on this Thursday. Be an interesting outcome and could be a bloody affair either side. Rangers been gunning for Doncaster for a long time. This could be Doncaster's last stand, or a serious sanction for Rangers. can't we lose both??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, kingjoey said: How would you feel if you substitute “Montrose” for “Rangers”? Would Cinch give a toss if, instead of the 42 they thought they'd paid for, their logo appeared on the sleeve of 41 shirts but "Duthies of Montrose" appeared on the other one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, steelmen said: can't we lose both??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbionMan Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 3 hours ago, TheBruce said: SPFL meeting on this Thursday. Be an interesting outcome and could be a bloody affair either side. Rangers been gunning for Doncaster for a long time. This could be Doncaster's last stand, or a serious sanction for Rangers. If Rangers had any integrity they might have said that they are unable to meet the requirements of the SPFL title sponsorship agreement and in consequence they are unable to accept any league sponsorship prize money to which their final league position may entitle them. Sadly, as Rangers and integrity are seldom if ever used in conjunction with each other, that will have to remain outwith the realm of possibility. It would be pleasant to think that Sky could be prevailed upon to screen virtual 'new sponsors name' across the Ibrox pitch throughout their matches and highlights this season. I fear though, that as Rangers, and the other cheek, are bigger than Scottish football, a supine accommodation in their favour will be reached. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, TheBruce said: Well firstly, the rights or wrong of this have yet to be proven. If Rangers are found in breach, then I think losing any financial benefit from the sponsorship maybe the least of it. If it is found that Doncaster ignored Rangers and pressed ahead regardless,' then I think Doncaster will be on his P45 and Rangers not providing any support to Cinch, who indeed may walk away, but that would be down to Doncaster's neglect, not Rangers. Just another day in the in the life of the self serving, trough guzzling incompetents that run our game. We really are a circus led by clowns. Seriously You’re going to argue none of this is the fault of RFC? Wild 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, Clown Job said: Seriously You’re going to argue none of this is the fault of RFC? Wild You don't like Sevco, we get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post kingjoey Posted August 5, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, bennett said: You don't like Sevco, we get it. Nobody does. Don’t single that one poster out. 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapowzer Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 If Doncaster had any banter in him he'd approach Dignitas to take over from Cinch. Top Sevco trolling. #10yearslate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 6 minutes ago, TheBruce said: IF Rangers did indeed previously notify the SPFL of the issue and were ignored, then no, its not the fault of Rangers. They complied with the rules. If only Rangers had known that the SPFL would have a sponsor. Clearly it was a complete surprise to them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 12 minutes ago, TheBruce said: IF Rangers did indeed previously notify the SPFL of the issue and were ignored, then no, its not the fault of Rangers. They complied with the rules. You're Rangers lawyer aren't you? 0 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.