New SPFL sponsor

[ropy]

8 minutes ago, bennett said:

Make public a confidential contract with a 3rd party?

 

 

Disclose it in broad terms to the authorities.

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

With all due respect We don't know the  answer 

The 'answer' I mean was to the question of whether the SPFL thinks it'd be worth taking Rangers to court. That's been answered. They do.

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

And the  league  maintaining it's ability to deal with future prospective league sponsors would be better achieved by updating the rulebook to make it clear that even if the league doesn't find a buyer for sleeve sponsorship the league still  owns the space on that  sleeve.

Only if the issue is about Rangers supposedly selling the exclusive shirt sleeve ad rights. I know that's a popular theory among us uninformed masses, but I think it's super unlikely. If that's really what this is about, Rangers are about to get utterly ragdolled in arbitration because the rulebook is already clear that the SPFL have dibs on the shirt sleeves. With no league sponsor, there's still a league logo to put on the sleeves, and G46 is about the league logo, sponsor or not.

I'd be massively surprised if this issue has anything to do with Tomket Tyres and their space on the Rangers sleeve.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Aim Here

[For Your Pies Only]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

Make public a confidential contract with a 3rd party?

 

 

No need for any confidential or commercially sensitive details to be made public, but also no reason why they can't disclose the commercial partner in question, without providing full details of the deal itself. If it's sponsorship related, why isn't this public anyway (That's kind of of how sponsorship works...) and if it isn't related to sponsorship, where is the conflict with Cinch? 

Why adopt the secret squirrel approach if it's all (aparently) above board?

[Dons_1988]

32 minutes ago, For Your Pies Only said:

No need for any confidential or commercially sensitive details to be made public, but also no reason why they can't disclose the commercial partner in question, without providing full details of the deal itself. If it's sponsorship related, why isn't this public anyway (That's kind of of how sponsorship works...) and if it isn't related to sponsorship, where is the conflict with Cinch? 

Why adopt the secret squirrel approach if it's all (aparently) above board?

What do you mean by ‘this is how sponsorship works’?

A company pays a football club/league whatever big sums of money to splash their branding as much as they possibly can. That’s about it. 

It’s not a public service, it’s still a confidential contract between the parties. 

[Sash83]

2 hours ago, bennett said:

Make public a confidential contract with a 3rd party?

 

 

Or stop being Billy big baws, and play by the rules like every other club, simple really 

[ribzanelli]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

What do you mean by ‘this is how sponsorship works’?

A company pays a football club/league whatever big sums of money to splash their branding as much as they possibly can. That’s about it. 

It’s not a public service, it’s still a confidential contract between the parties. 

Is it not to do with who the sponsor is rather than how much they paid? Others have looked at Rangers sponsors and none seem to have a business conflict with cinch, hence the total confusion.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

Is it not to do with who the sponsor is rather than how much they paid? Others have looked at Rangers sponsors and none seem to have a business conflict with cinch, hence the total confusion.

Yeah it is but I still don’t see why that’s necessarily a matter for public consumption. 

ETA rangers may have a legitimate gripe, the problem for me is the very public nature of the dispute which seems pretty avoidable to me. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Dons_1988

[ribzanelli]

21 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah it is but I still don’t see why that’s necessarily a matter for public consumption. 

ETA rangers may have a legitimate gripe, the problem for me is the very public nature of the dispute which seems pretty avoidable to me. 

For sure, but the entire point of sponsorship is to get your name out there, seems strange that they have a sponsor who wants to remain anonymous!

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, Aim Here said:

The 'answer' I mean was to the question of whether the SPFL thinks it'd be worth taking Rangers to court. That's been answered. They do.

The more interesting 'answer' is whether they're right 
 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 hours ago, steelmen said:

On your second point, hopefully they never need it again but good luck getting everyone to agree on that rule.

 

It's probably easier to get agreement on a rule that nobody expects to be needed
 

[Jacky1990]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah it is but I still don’t see why that’s necessarily a matter for public consumption. 

ETA rangers may have a legitimate gripe, the problem for me is the very public nature of the dispute which seems pretty avoidable to me. 

It was always going to end up public though since the dispute continued into the season so everyone was able to see Rangers' lack of cinch official branding, etc.

Where Rangers have made an arse of it, in my opinion, is that they could simply have came out before the start of the season and said something along the lines of "we are unfortunately unable to show cinch branding because we believe it conflicts with our existing contract with Company X. The matter is with our lawyers and we will not be commenting further on this subject until the matter is resolved."

No details. Nothing specific. No further comment. Thats all they had to do. Instead we got the usual club statement bullshit which was essentially just mud slinging towards the SPFL, which helps no one and creates this confusion. As you said, all very avoidable.

[DukDukGoose]

Well Rangers made a c**t of this tonight.

[Clown Job]

Are they going to refuse to fly the flag because of the sponsor on the front when the day comes or will they just make one up themselves without it?

 

[thepundit]

The cinch deal only started this season did it not?….

News to me that they had any involvement in the 2020/2021 leagues in Scotland?…

[ropy]

33 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Are they going to refuse to fly the flag because of the sponsor on the front when the day comes or will they just make one up themselves without it?

 

Ryan Kent will have a version they can use 

[Jamie_B]

Park's of Hamilton have won an interdict at the Court of Session stopping the SFA arbitration from going ahead because it didn't include them as an "interested party".

I guess that's confirmation that the issue at the heart of this is that Park's is a direct competitor of cinch, and that they have a contract with Rangers that precludes advertising another car dealer?

[AJF]

21 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

Park's of Hamilton have won an interdict at the Court of Session stopping the SFA arbitration from going ahead because it didn't include them as an "interested party".

I guess that's confirmation that the issue at the heart of this is that Park's is a direct competitor of cinch, and that they have a contract with Rangers that precludes advertising another car dealer?

Sounds like that is the case now, which is disappointing to be honest. I’d hoped that this would be sorted sooner rather than later but it seems the arbitration will still go ahead, just with Parks included as an interested party.

Seems the SPFL weren’t keen for that to happen.

[Clown Job]

22 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

Park's of Hamilton have won an interdict at the Court of Session stopping the SFA arbitration from going ahead because it didn't include them as an "interested party".

I guess that's confirmation that the issue at the heart of this is that Park's is a direct competitor of cinch, and that they have a contract with Rangers that precludes advertising another car dealer?

It’s a weird deal if true considering RFC don’t advertise Park’s from what I can see 

[steelmen]

It’s a weird deal if true considering RFC don’t advertise Park’s from what I can see 

Guessing that will be the crux of the spfl’s case. They aren’t losing anything as they aren’t actually sponsored by this company.

How can you have a commercial contract, that states you can’t advertise another car sales company, with a company that you get nothing from except your chairman owns them.

Don’t understand why Parks of Hamilton want to be involved in the arbitration. It has zero to do with them. The issue is between Rangers and the SPFL. Whatever contract Rangers claim to have with Parks is between them, nothing to do with the cinch deal.

[Aim Here]

16 minutes ago, AJF said:

Sounds like that is the case now, which is disappointing to be honest. I’d hoped that this would be sorted sooner rather than later but it seems the arbitration will still go ahead, just with Parks included as an interested party.

Seems the SPFL weren’t keen for that to happen.

Parks of Hamilton aren't under the SFA's jurisdiction so this might be the legal route to stopping arbitration entirely, and taking it to a proper courtroom. Rangers can't argue for evading arbitration, whereas Parks can.