New SPFL sponsor

[Dons_1988]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

What does this mean exactly? Is it relevant to the dispute Rangers have with SPFL, or is it something that is just coming out as part of the back and forth?

I would pace yourself fella, you’re in for a long night. 

[Aim Here]

I'm still curious about this Parks/Rangers contract. It was signed in May 2021, apparently, and Rangers still haven't shown a copy to the court yet.

The cinch/Rangers negotiations were occurring up to early June, and Rangers have yet to give a copy to the court except with severe redactions. For some bizarre reason, Rangers signed some sort of advertising exclusivity deal with Parks (though not one that involves actually advertising Parks of Hamilton) while still talking to cinch about renaming Ibrox! If the dates are right, either Rangers managed to skillfully concoct a very precise contract with Parks that would have allowed cinch to name the stadium, but not to have their name on the SPFL logo on the shirt badge, or Rangers were negotiating with cinch in bad faith.

The SPFL's lawyer thinks this contract is as fishy as I do.

“We do have considerable doubt about the way in which this document has been produced and redacted and we would invite your lordship to direct the petitioners to disclose the full contract to your lordship in a sealed envelope in order that the purported redactions can be examined and the issue of commercial sensitivity determined as it is a matter under the court.” (my emphasis).

The most obvious explanation to me is that Douglas Park got miffed at cinch for getting some relatively cheap advertising deal after failing to score $billions for renaming Ibrox, and had Rangers retroactively falsify and backdate a very weird, nonstandard contract to spoil the cinch/SPFL deal, because nothing else makes any kind of obvious sense. Of course that would mean that Rangers are engaged in fraudulent activity leading to tortious interference and all sorts of stuff of that ilk, so I'm sure that can't be the case. Anyone got a more reasonable hypothesis?

Edited September 22, 2021 by Aim Here

[AsimButtHitsASix]

14 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

It has a massive bearing on it if the argument allowing cinch into the game effect another one of their partnerships, as Rangers would then have to argue how naming Ibrox would not (which would give cinch far more exposure than league sponsorship would).  

Could it not work in Sevco's favour the other way to? THey could say "The reason we never took this was because of how it would affect our partnership with Parks"

Which is, of course, nonsense but nothing stopping them from saying it

[oneteaminglasgow]

11 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

For some bizarre reason, Rangers signed some sort of advertising exclusivity deal with Parks (though not one that involves actually advertising Parks of Hamilton)

This is the main thing for me - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Rangers to agree not to advertise competitors of Parks of Hamilton without Parks paying them not to, but I also have no idea why Parks would pay them not to advertise competitors without also advertising them.

Edited September 22, 2021 by oneteaminglasgow

[AJF]

16 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I would pace yourself fella, you’re in for a long night. 

Thankfully I'll be at the game and will miss most of the shenanigans 

[AJF]

18 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

I'm still curious about this Parks/Rangers contract. It was signed in May 2021, apparently, and Rangers still haven't shown a copy to the court yet.

The cinch/Rangers negotiations were occurring up to early June, and Rangers have yet to give a copy to the court except with severe redactions. For some bizarre reason, Rangers signed some sort of advertising exclusivity deal with Parks (though not one that involves actually advertising Parks of Hamilton) while still talking to cinch about renaming Ibrox! If the dates are right, either Rangers managed to skillfully concoct a very precise contract with Parks that would have allowed cinch to name the stadium, but not to have their name on the SPFL logo on the shirt badge, or Rangers were negotiating with cinch in bad faith.

The SPFL's lawyer thinks this contract is as fishy as I do.

“We do have considerable doubt about the way in which this document has been produced and redacted and we would invite your lordship to direct the petitioners to disclose the full contract to your lordship in a sealed envelope in order that the purported redactions can be examined and the issue of commercial sensitivity determined as it is a matter under the court.” (my emphasis).

The most obvious explanation to me is that Douglas Park got miffed at cinch for getting some relatively cheap advertising deal after failing to score $billions for renaming Ibrox, and had Rangers retroactively falsify and backdate a very weird, nonstandard contract to spoil the cinch/SPFL deal, because nothing else makes any kind of obvious sense. Of course that would mean that Rangers are engaged in fraudulent activity leading to tortious interference and all sorts of stuff of that ilk, so I'm sure that can't be the case. Anyone got a more reasonable hypothesis?

Out of interest, what are you using to keep up to date with this? Is this a news report/social media account or transcripts from the court?

[Kapowzer]

Hoisted by one's own petard

[Aim Here]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

Out of interest, what are you using to keep up to date with this? Is this a news report/social media account or transcripts from the court?

That's just a quote from today's Scottish Sun article. It would be nice to have some sort of case docket full of court documents, as happens a lot with US court cases, but I'm not aware of any.

[Orbix]

24 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

 

The most obvious explanation to me is that Douglas Park got miffed at cinch for getting some relatively cheap advertising deal after failing to score $billions for renaming Ibrox, and had Rangers retroactively falsify and backdate a contract to spoil the cinch/SPFL deal, because nothing else makes any kind of obvious sense. Of course that would mean that Rangers are engaged in fraudulent activity leading to tortious interference and all sorts of stuff of that ilk, so I'm sure that can't be the case. Anyone got a more reasonable hypothesis?

I think that if your most obvious line of reasoning is this then you’ve gone too far.

[Steve_Wilkos]

Rangers, and their fans, constantly exude micro-penis energy.

[Aim Here]

11 minutes ago, Orbix said:

I think that if your most obvious line of reasoning is this then you’ve gone too far.

So what theory do you have that makes sense, that doesn't involve Rangers wrongdoing?

What we know about the supposed Parks of Hamilton/Rangers contract makes no sense - it's a contract where Rangers are precluded from advertising other companies but don't advertise Parks of Hamilton themselves (the most inefficient advertising contract possible!). It's a contract drafted so precisely that Rangers are somehow not allowed to put cinch on billboards, or on the SPFL badge on their shirt advertising but they are allowed to rename Ibrox after cinch.

Can you imagine any reasonable contract that a football team would sign with a used car salesman in the ordinary course of it's business that would have that effect? What do you think Parks of Hamilton were paying for, exactly? I'm at a loss myself.

Some common or garden fraudulent wrongdoing and forgery is the most reasonable explanation that I can think of. I at least understand the motives behind it.

Maybe you have a better imagination or are more clued up in the business practices of Scottish football than me. Please enlighten me, if so.

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Aim Here

[AJF]

If it does turn out that any existing contract we have is fraudulent or forged then we are going to get hammered.

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

[Clown Job]

 

[Dee Man]

The bit I don't understand is why Douglas Park would allegedly have been happy to have entered into negotiations about renaming Ibrox to The Cinch Stadium or whatever at the risk of undermining his own company. 

[Hoose Rice]

1 hour ago, Antiochas III said:

It has a massive bearing on it if the argument allowing cinch into the game effect another one of their partnerships, as Rangers would then have to argue how naming Ibrox would not (which would give cinch far more exposure than league sponsorship would).  

 

Aye games up the pole for the currants on this yin. 

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, Orbix said:

Can discuss Cinch@Ibrox or whatever the possibility was until the cows come home, as long as no contract was signed there's no legal relationship between Cinch and Rangers and it doesn't matter to the dispute between the SPFL and Rangers themselves (in my opinion).

Will be funny if Bisgrove asked for more for the name than the SPFL asked for the league though. 

Also, if Cinch were already interested in Scottish football sponsorship, how much work did the agency Doncaster hired actually do?

Yeah, yeah. But this story is pretty funny for the rest of us.

[Mark Connolly]

25 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

The bit I don't understand is why Douglas Park would allegedly have been happy to have entered into negotiations about renaming Ibrox to The Cinch Stadium or whatever at the risk of undermining his own company. 

The Cinch Stadium at Ibrox Parks (Of Hamilton)?

[Miguel Sanchez]

@HibsFan update required

[Orbix]

15 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

So what theory do you have that makes sense, that doesn't involve Rangers wrongdoing?

What we know about the supposed Parks of Hamilton/Rangers contract makes no sense - it's a contract where Rangers are precluded from advertising other companies but don't advertise Parks of Hamilton themselves (the most inefficient advertising contract possible!). It's a contract drafted so precisely that Rangers are somehow not allowed to put cinch on billboards, or on the SPFL badge on their shirt advertising but they are allowed to rename Ibrox after cinch.

Can you imagine any reasonable contract that a football team would sign with a used car salesman in the ordinary course of it's business that would have that effect? What do you think Parks of Hamilton were paying for, exactly? I'm at a loss myself.

Some common or garden fraudulent wrongdoing and forgery is the most reasonable explanation that I can think of. I at least understand the motives behind it.

Maybe you have a better imagination or are more clued up in the business practices of Scottish football than me. Please enlighten me, if so.

 

 

 

Again, you’re claiming that people would perjure themselves in a high profile case because of contractual disputes we’ve got no idea of, risking a prison sentence in the process. That’s the fantastical one that needs backing up as the ‘most reasonable’

f**k knows the facts of the contracts though. Maybe Park signed a deal that allowed his firm first refusal over advertisements made by a certain SIC code, or a hundred and one other possibilities. That Rangers negotiated, and then failed to reach an agreement with cinch doesn’t mean that the SPFL deal was handled properly or within their rules though.