New SPFL sponsor

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, steelmen said:

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.

I seriously doubt that. It's not the job of the SFA or the SPFL to say what a private company can and can't contract out, except as specified by the rulebook and contracts that Rangers signed with them. The SPFL's position so far is likely something like 'Rangers are apparently breaching the SPFL rulebook by not displaying the league logo. They won't show us the pre-existing contract they contend allows them to do this, so we have to call in the SFA to compel them to prove that they're not lying or misreading the rules.

1 minute ago, steelmen said:

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.

Parks of Hamilton no doubt supply Rangers with team buses and the like, so there will be some kind of respectable contract. How that supplier contract managed to give Parks of Hamilton the right to dictate stadium advertising remains to be seen, though. It's most odd.

[williemillersmoustache]

Huge win for Parks of Hamilton FC winning the Interim Interdict trophy and entry into the SFA Arbitration Conference

[Dee Man]

On 05/08/2021 at 00:43, Orbix said:

There’s been absolutely nothing to say it’s the Park’s link that’s causing the issue

There is now. 

[For Your Pies Only]

On 01/08/2021 at 11:57, bennett said:

The article doesn't give any comments from Rangers or state what the issue is but I can't see us going this far because of a business rivalry.

If Rangers can make any changes at the SPFL and challenge their ineptitude, then Scottish football should be applauding the champions.

 

On 01/08/2021 at 12:17, bennett said:

Taking legal action because of Cinch being in the same type of business as Douglas Park would be ridiculous, I really can't see that being the reason.

(...)

You slate Rangers for taking action when you don't know the reasons,  maybe you should take a step back... it might even be to everyones benefit.

 

 

Any further comments, now the Parks link has been confirmed? Or would admiting your club's business dealings are perpetually tinpot ruin the narrative of exceptionalism that your fans (and board) love so dearly?

[steelmen]

Parks of Hamilton no doubt supply Rangers with team buses and the like, so there will be some kind of respectable contract. How that supplier contract managed to give Parks of Hamilton the right to dictate stadium advertising remains to be seen, though. It's most odd.

They supply at least 3 other teams I know of and all of them are happy enough to show the league logo.

Bennet has put a statement about it on the Rangers thread about this and it reads like the issue is between parks and the spfl/sfa. Maybe that is where the commercial contract comes from.

[bennett]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

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

 

Just checked the list of partners on the clubs website and Parks aren't there but if the courts agreed to it then there must be a reason. 

Interesting that the article said that the SFA ignored their own rulebook "  the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules". 

 

33 minutes ago, For Your Pies Only said:

 

 

Any further comments, now the Parks link has been confirmed? Or would admiting your club's business dealings are perpetually tinpot ruin the narrative of exceptionalism that your fans (and board) love so dearly?

 

It doesn't like Rangers/Parks are spitting the dummy because of a company in the same line of business as Douglas Park has got involved in Scottish football, surely the court would have told them to do one?

It does look like there is a contractual obligation between Rangers and Parks, what that could be, I've no idea.

[Aim Here]

25 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

Just checked the list of partners on the clubs website and Parks aren't there but if the courts agreed to it then there must be a reason. 

Interesting that the article said that the SFA ignored their own rulebook "  the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules". 

Well it's a matter of interpretation. It's not obvious that Parks of Hamilton would be an 'interested party', since they're not part of the dispute and neither the SPFL nor the SFA could, or want to, impose any kind of sanctions on them. I don't think this would be 'ignoring' the rulebook, just having one point of view on what the words meant. Bread and butter for lawyers, and obviously the judge sided with Parks of Hamilton this time.

 

25 minutes ago, bennett said:

It doesn't like Rangers/Parks are spitting the dummy because of a company in the same line of business as Douglas Park has got involved in Scottish football, surely the court would have told them to do one?

Not at all. The whole purpose of those kinds of clauses in contracts is precisely to prevent companies in one line of business as another appearing in the same privately operated space as another. There's nothing untoward insofar as that goes. It's a pretty wild exercise to come up with any normal-looking contract that Rangers would have with Parks of Hamilton that would give Parks some veto over Ibrox advertising space, but the basic principle - if I pay you for advertising, I don't want my competitors advertising next to me - is pretty normal.

25 minutes ago, bennett said:

It does look like there is a contractual obligation between Rangers and Parks, what that could be, I've no idea.

That's what Rangers is alleging, but it'll be too early in the process to look at the actual facts of the case. It's possible that the dispute revolves around whether or not such a pre-existing contract even existed, or whether some twisted interpretation of the contract's wording means what Rangers says it does.

Then again, there'll be some kind of bus supply contract between Rangers and Parks, though how a normal supplier contract of that sort would give Parks some rights over Rangers' advertising space is left for everyone to speculate.

[UsedToGoToCentralPark]

Scenes from the courthouse.

[DukDukGoose]

3 hours 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.

Come on to f**k.

[Empty It]

Rangers will win any court case, the SPFL & SFA are beyond incompetent.

Also the judges are masons.

[Jacky1990]

3 hours ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

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?

Are cinch and Parks direct competitors though?

Is one not a car trading/buying website and the other a car/bus hire company? Theyre different things surely? Its not like Lidl and McDonalds are direct competitors because both companys sell food.

Ive not seen anything about cinch asking for clubs or executives to only drive cinch bought vehicles so I struggle to see where this clash with Parks occurs in a practical sense. 

[ropy]

1 minute ago, Jacky1990 said:

Are cinch and Parks direct competitors though?

Is one not a car trading/buying website and the other a car/bus hire company? Theyre different things surely? Its not like Lidl and McDonalds are direct competitors because both companys sell food.

Ive not seen anything about cinch asking for clubs or executives to only drive cinch bought vehicles so I struggle to see where this clash with Parks occurs in a practical sense. 

Parks sell cars, new and used.

[ropy]

I thought Rangers failed to disclose the nature of their beef, how could the SFA know to invite Parks into the arbitration?

[Orbix]

1 minute ago, ropy said:

I thought Rangers failed to disclose the nature of their beef, how could the SFA know to invite Parks into the arbitration?

Not a single fucker knows what has been disclosed.

 

For comparison, the SIC Codes for Cinch (45111 and 45112) and Parks (45111) overlap. To the government, they’re in the same line of business.

 

[AJF]

25 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Come on to f**k.

? You’ll need to elaborate here.

[Brian Graham’s Lovely Hair]

10 minutes ago, Orbix said:

Not a single fucker knows what has been disclosed.

 

For comparison, the SIC Codes for Cinch (45111 and 45112) and Parks (45111) overlap. To the government, they’re in the same line of business.

 

This is the first time I’ve ever seen SIC codes mentioned in a football discussion, and I applaud it. 

[Orbix]

1 minute ago, Brian Graham’s Lovely Hair said:

This is the first time I’ve ever seen SIC codes mentioned in a football discussion, and I applaud it. 

Thank you. I really wish it wasn’t necessary, all the same. 

[craigkillie]

33 minutes ago, Empty It said:

Rangers will win any court case, the SPFL & SFA are beyond incompetent.

Also the judges are masons.

They seemed to drive a massive bus through Hearts and Partick Thistle's risible case no problem at all.

[DukDukGoose]

28 minutes ago, AJF said:

? You’ll need to elaborate here.

It was obvious it was all about Parks from the start.

[TheScarf]

Parks have about 50 car dealerships in Scotland. They're a pretty big. It absolutely dwarfs their bus rental division. They're a direct competitor of Cinch.