New SPFL sponsor

[Clown Job]

I see Tottenham have a new sleeve sponsor 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 hour ago, steelmen said:

Don’t forget he didn’t arrange it, he has wasted £100k a year on a broker…

It is roughly 6% commission. Hardly the give away of the century.

Do people think you get sponsorships by cold calling and sending a few emails.  it is part of the wider ad industry.

[steelmen]

It is roughly 6% commission. Hardly the give away of the century.
Do people think you get sponsorships by cold calling and sending a few emails.  it is part of the wider ad industry.

According to Robertson it is, we should hire a commercial director to cold call and send those emails for £50k a year. Cheap at half the price!

[parsforlife]

Maybe I've missed it(I've ignored alot of the petty B.S) but were sevco not claiming at the beginning of this that they were annoyed that clubs weren't consulted,  and now they are claiming to have seen the detail before it was agreed to and alerted the spfl with their concerns.

What one was it?

[kingjoey]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Love the idea that Doncaster is incompetent because he accepted the largest sponsorship deal he could get.

Clearly he shouldve turned that down because one club decided they didn't want to advertise the company involved.

Exactly. Rangers think it’s perfectly reasonable that one club out of 42 member clubs should be able to put the kybosh on a deal which benefits all clubs. Bully boy tactics.

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Exactly. Rangers think it’s perfectly reasonable that one club out of 42 member clubs should be able to put the kybosh on a deal which benefits all clubs. Bully boy tactics.

It's brilliant.

In general conversation the denizens of P&B hate the SPFL and despise the cockwomble - their own (and delightful) term. 

BUT when it comes to doing something about it they shite the bed like the diddies they are.

[kingjoey]

7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It's brilliant.

In general conversation the denizens of P&B hate the SPFL and despise the cockwomble - their own (and delightful) term. 

BUT when it comes to doing something about it they shite the bed like the diddies they are.

I am obviously not one of yer standard denizens of P&B. Anyway, in all cases I can think of SPFL > Rangers. Has Stewart Robertson resigned from the SPFL board yet?

 

 

 

 

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

I am obviously not one of yer standard denizens of P&B. Anyway, in all cases I can think of SPFL > Rangers. Has Stewart Robertson resigned from the SPFL board yet?

I hope not.  One needs a sane voice in an organisation headed by the idiot Murdo MacLennan.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

I am obviously not one of yer standard denizens of P&B. Anyway, in all cases I can think of SPFL > Rangers. Has Stewart Robertson resigned from the SPFL board yet?

 

 

 

 

Yup. Doncaster is an imbecile and hopeless as can be, but in the huge majority of cases, he's preferable to Robertson / Sevco board drones.

This is an extremely straightforward thing to understand.

[parsforlife]

Let’s be clear here, a lot of the issues with Doncaster are because he back idiotic OF ideas. 
 

Not rolling over to the latest crap doesn’t make up for that, but it’s still the right  thing to do,

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

9 hours ago, ropy said:

What specific rule have Rangers followed which has relevance here?

"Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

...If only

[ropy]

I noticed there was no sponsor board for Gerard’s interview after his defeat by Dundee.

[Clown Job]

4 hours ago, ropy said:

I noticed there was no sponsor board for Gerard’s interview after his defeat by Dundee.

Wonder if this means they will provide their own flag for the unfurling, since they have a big Cinch logo on them

[Clown Job]

SPFL asking the SFA to arbitrate According to McGowan

 

edit: Full article 

The SPFL have asked the SFA to arbitrate their simmering row with Rangers over an £8million cinch sponsorship deal after warning clubs that the dispute could hamper their ability to pay out prize money.

The Ibrox club are in legal dispute with league chiefs after refusing to promote the £1.6million a year league tie-up with the online car firm on their jerseys or within their stadium.

Rangers insist that rule I7 of the SPFL states that clubs are 'not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractural obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned.

Ibrox managing director Stewart Robertson claims the league were also informed that Rangers 'would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation' and accused the central body of blowing £500,000 of club cash on agency fees.

Despite weeks of discussions, however, the two sides have failed to sort out their differences.

And the SPFL board have now 'reluctantly' referred the matter to the SFA for independent arbitration amidst fears cinch could rip up the deal and walk away, depriving clubs of revenue.

In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: 'The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL's relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.

At their opening league match, none of that club's players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.

'Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.

'However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.

'The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL's fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.

'This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.

'Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.

'However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.'

Writing to clubs last week Rangers MD Robertson insisted the champions were within their rights to take issue with the £8million contract, writing: 'For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

'One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.

'When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation. We cannot breach an existing contract.

'This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.

'Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Clown Job

[Forest_Fifer]

Still no clarification on what exactly this contractual obligation is.

[Fife Saint]

This is about to get messy.

[Lobby Dossar]

Just throw the fuckers oot the League 

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

SPFL asking the SFA to arbitrate According to McGowan

 

edit: Full article 

The SPFL have asked the SFA to arbitrate their simmering row with Rangers over an £8million cinch sponsorship deal after warning clubs that the dispute could hamper their ability to pay out prize money.

The Ibrox club are in legal dispute with league chiefs after refusing to promote the £1.6million a year league tie-up with the online car firm on their jerseys or within their stadium.

Rangers insist that rule I7 of the SPFL states that clubs are 'not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractural obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned.

Ibrox managing director Stewart Robertson claims the league were also informed that Rangers 'would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation' and accused the central body of blowing £500,000 of club cash on agency fees.

Despite weeks of discussions, however, the two sides have failed to sort out their differences.

And the SPFL board have now 'reluctantly' referred the matter to the SFA for independent arbitration amidst fears cinch could rip up the deal and walk away, depriving clubs of revenue.

In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: 'The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL's relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.

At their opening league match, none of that club's players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.

'Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.

'However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.

'The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL's fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.

'This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.

'Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.

'However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.'

Writing to clubs last week Rangers MD Robertson insisted the champions were within their rights to take issue with the £8million contract, writing: 'For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

'One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.

'When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation. We cannot breach an existing contract.

'This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.

'Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.

 

 

If Rangers are willing to comply with all SPFL rules, why are they not complying with Rule G46, which states that all clubs must wear a sleeve patch advertising the SPFL sponsor.

[Clown Job]

11 minutes ago, Fife Saint said:

This is about to get messy.

If the SFA rule in favour of the SPFL it will be seen as some anti RFC conspiracy and vice versa

[smc4761]

Simple solution kick them out of Scottish football. How easy was that ?