New SPFL sponsor

[J_Stewart]

Even by Sevco's standards of providing banter to the masses, that pipebomb this afternoon is a fucking goldmine of hilarity. How could it possibly got this far without one of their directors or legal team saying "here lads, we might have undermined our position here slightly? Is bringing this to the public eye a good idea?"

I can only assume their legal representation is being led by Staunch Donald and Lionel Hutz .

Cannot wait for the official statement. 

[Aim Here]

38 minutes ago, Orbix said:

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’

I agree that it's a highly unlikely scenario. However, nobody has come up with a less unlikely one. That's the issue.

Let's see your attempt at a plausible theory.

38 minutes ago, Orbix said:

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.

See, that fails on three counts.

First, the contract is not with Douglas Park as an individual, but Parks of Hamilton. This isn't a contract relating to Douglas Park's part-ownership of Rangers, it's a deal between two companies that he owns. Parks of Hamilton already got themselves added to the lawsuit on that very basis.

Secondly, paying money to have no advertising of a particular type is a spectacularly inefficient use of advertising budget. Not having any cars advertised in a given space if you're not advertising there yourself doesn't make people more likely to buy *your* cars. Why would Parks of Hamilton pay good money for that? Why are Parks of Hamilton not paying ITV or Facebook or craigslist or Celtic Football club or the Scottish Daily Record or the Odeon cinema to not advertise other people's used cars there? Why single out Ibrox?

Thirdly, Rangers were negotiating renaming the whole damn stadium after cinch after the contract was ostensibly signed. Either this, already bizarre, contract was drafted in a weird way that the entire stadium could emblazon cinch's logo but not the little SPFL logo on the team badges, or Rangers were negotiating in bad faith. Either way, why?

See, your theory is also a highly unlikely fantastical scenario.

The difference between our theories is that my one at least makes sense in terms of the motives of the actors. I can see why Parks of Hamilton and a Douglas Park-controlled Rangers would want to screw over cinch. Rangers don't want a 'loophole' to cheap advertising, after the company they were talking to balked at the price. Parks of Hamilton don't like competition. Both are owned by the same guy so it would be easy to get both entities to cooperate. Sure they'd be taking a huge risk, but it's not unheard of for company owners to break the law or for members of the business classes to commit fraud and perjury. It's not unheard of for football clubs named Rangers to break the law and end up on the hook for £tens of millions once they got caught either.

With your way, I simply can't see why Parks of Hamilton would pay money for a bizarre contract involving negative advertising, but not advertise in the space themselves, and I can't see why Rangers would negotiate with cinch after signing such a deal.

Your brief handwaved theory simply makes no sense, and that's the issue. I've yet to see even the vaguest one-sentence outline of a plausible hypothetical contract that would have the effect attributed to it by Rangers Football Club. As far as I'm concerned this is the elephant in the room - there's no apparent reason for whatever this Parks/Rangers contract is to exist, except purely as a spoiler for the SPFL. The latest news - that Rangers were negotiating with cinch for a major advertising deal after the contract was supposedly signed - is hard to reconcile even with that, unless there was actual wrongdoing, or at least bad-faith negotiation, involved.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Aim Here

[TheScarf]

Rangers fans on Twitter claiming the QC has lied.  In court.

[Kapowzer]

Down the Loudon Tavern tonight ..... "A tell yi, its Tomket Tyres who don't want Cinch there"

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Cinch have had their moneys worth from this deal already and we're only 6 games in thanks to the behaviour of Rangers.

The ultimate 'wee guy' of world football.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

51 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Rangers fans on Twitter claiming the QC has lied.  In court.

Queen's Council lying to discredit the Queen's XI? With all this stuff about Andrew, Meghan and now this I think the Queen has lost her edge. Time to go Liz.

[Guest Flash]

Is it possible that cinch were going to pay Park’s of Hamilton some compensation as part of the Ibrox renaming deal? So both Rangers and Park’s would have been ok with that. With the SPFL one, Park’s get nothing for having a competitor advertising on the shirts and inside Ibrox, thereby diluting their exclusive association with Rangers (supplier of the club’s transport). Rangers don’t want to be part of a deal that annoys one of their sponsors especially when the club doesn’t get that much from the deal (relatively speaking) and the sponsors get nothing.
This is the best I can come up with in terms of how Rangers might be arguing their case.

[coprolite]

3 hours 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?

Not a fully thought out hypothesis as such, but i reckon there's a good chance that any restrictions were real but only put in place for the benefit of Rangers' negotiation with Cinch. Some sort of imaginary impediment as an excuse for why they wouldn't accept the first couple of offers, because they'd have to pay Parks  to get out of exclusivity? 

Just guessing on the basis of the limited facts that apparently make no logical sense. 

[Aim Here]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Not a fully thought out hypothesis as such, but i reckon there's a good chance that any restrictions were real but only put in place for the benefit of Rangers' negotiation with Cinch. Some sort of imaginary impediment as an excuse for why they wouldn't accept the first couple of offers, because they'd have to pay Parks  to get out of exclusivity? 

Just guessing on the basis of the limited facts that apparently make no logical sense. 

Interesting idea. cinch were trying to negotiate a deal with Douglas Parks with his Rangers hat on - whose hands were tied in this negotiation because Douglas Parks with his Parks of Hamilton hat on needed to be paid to cash out of this contract with himself that he just scrawled on the back of a fag packet twenty minutes ago, so unfortunately the price is five million more than what was originally quoted. Then they got to use a similar trick when the SPFL announced the league sponsor. It suggests Rangers business dealings are as mad as a bag of ferrets, but certainly as plausible a theory as I've heard.

[steelmen]

Rangers don’t want to be part of a deal that annoys one of their sponsors especially when the club doesn’t get that much from the deal (relatively speaking) and the sponsors get nothing.
This is the best I can come up with in terms of how Rangers might be arguing their case.

Except Parks don’t sponsor Rangers, with the exception of supplying their transportation like they do with lots of other teams who are happy with showing cinch logo’s.

Do I believe this heavily redacted contract was signed after this all kicked off? Yes, because why has it taken until now to appear? The spfl asked for evidence but Rangers refused to show it until ordered to in court. Why?

[Orbix]

I reckon the contract has got the secret plans for the covid microchips and that’s why it’s redacted so much 

[Guest Flash]

10 minutes ago, steelmen said:

Except Parks don’t sponsor Rangers, with the exception of supplying their transportation like they do with lots of other teams who are happy with showing cinch logo’s.

Do I believe this heavily redacted contract was signed after this all kicked off? Yes, because why has it taken until now to appear? The spfl asked for evidence but Rangers refused to show it until ordered to in court. Why?

 

I’ve no idea why Rangers refused to show evidence to the SPFL other than there was some sort of confidentiality clause that prevented it.
Although Park’s supply transport to other clubs, they must charge for that whereas their deal with Rangers is maybe that they supply it for free, or at a reduced cost, on condition that Rangers don’t advertise any other car dealers. So, they effectively sponsor them by not charging as much for the transport as they could.
Have to admit that I’m just guessing and I’m probably totally wrong.

[Aim Here]

41 minutes ago, Flash said:

I’ve no idea why Rangers refused to show evidence to the SPFL other than there was some sort of confidentiality clause that prevented it.
Although Park’s supply transport to other clubs, they must charge for that whereas their deal with Rangers is maybe that they supply it for free, or at a reduced cost, on condition that Rangers don’t advertise any other car dealers. So, they effectively sponsor them by not charging as much for the transport as they could.
Have to admit that I’m just guessing and I’m probably totally wrong.

I don't advertise used car dealers either. Will Parks of Hamilton give me free bus hire? If all it takes to get free or cheap stuff is to not advertise anything, I should be due a ton of backdated swag.

Wouldn't it be a better use of nominal monetary value to exchange their bus hire for actually advertising Parks of Hamilton in the stadium? That way Rangers fans will be slightly more inclined to be inspired to buy cars from Parks of Hamilton rather than buy quality leisurewear from Snodgrass of Govan, or give themselves cardiac arrhythmia from drinking too much Gorrilla Energy drink or eat out at Betty Spaghetti's Italian chain restaurants or whatever?

This 'Parks of Hamilton are in the business of clearing spaces of used car advertising' notion seems slightly absurd, does it not? There is that one time Paddy Power decided to sponsor a couple of football shirts to carry no sponsor logo, but they made damn sure everyone knew about it and it's more in line with their brand image. I don't see Parks of Hamilton going down the snarky social media presence route any time soon, and normally, actually advertising your brand is the useful way of spending your advertising budget...

Edited September 22, 2021 by Aim Here

[Empty It]

There is that one time Paddy Power decided to sponsor a couple of football shirts to carry no sponsor logo, but they made damn sure everyone knew about it ...

Was this not something to do with the league not wanting gambling firms on the tops after paddy power agreed sponsorship deals?

[craigkillie]

There are plenty of gambling sponsors around both here and in England, it was purely a publicity stunt.

[Orbix]

23 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

There are plenty of gambling sponsors around both here and in England, it was purely a publicity stunt.

Not any more apparently.

Be interesting to see which official noodle provider Bisgrove conjures up to replace unibet.

 

[steelmen]

I’ve no idea why Rangers refused to show evidence to the SPFL other than there was some sort of confidentiality clause that prevented it.
Although Park’s supply transport to other clubs, they must charge for that whereas their deal with Rangers is maybe that they supply it for free, or at a reduced cost, on condition that Rangers don’t advertise any other car dealers. So, they effectively sponsor them by not charging as much for the transport as they could.
Have to admit that I’m just guessing and I’m probably totally wrong.

There is every chance your right about the confidentiality clause but what did Rangers expect the spfl to do? Just take their word for it? They have the largest league sponsorship contract ever (stop laughing) sitting on the table and one club says we can’t sign up to that but we can’t show you why.

On Parks’ contract that’s a very specific contract for a bus company to make 1 club sign and not offer to the rest. I have no idea the make up of Parks motor group but normally each company does it’s own deals so parks’ forecourts wouldn’t have input to a contact for parks of Hamilton, granted the negotiations could have all been in Douglas parks head, one hell of a conflict of interest there.

Then you add in that they were negotiating with cinch to name the stadium. It just keeps sounding like Rangers trying to be awkward towards the spfl.

[Sergeant Wilson]

I wish I'd said earlier now. I'd  guessed it was a toys out the pram by Rangers after getting jilted by cinch. I said nothing because I was sure no serious business would be that childish.

[Guest Flash]

12 hours ago, Aim Here said:

I don't advertise used car dealers either. Will Parks of Hamilton give me free bus hire? If all it takes to get free or cheap stuff is to not advertise anything, I should be due a ton of backdated swag.

Wouldn't it be a better use of nominal monetary value to exchange their bus hire for actually advertising Parks of Hamilton in the stadium? That way Rangers fans will be slightly more inclined to be inspired to buy cars from Parks of Hamilton rather than buy quality leisurewear from Snodgrass of Govan, or give themselves cardiac arrhythmia from drinking too much Gorrilla Energy drink or eat out at Betty Spaghetti's Italian chain restaurants or whatever?

This 'Parks of Hamilton are in the business of clearing spaces of used car advertising' notion seems slightly absurd, does it not? There is that one time Paddy Power decided to sponsor a couple of football shirts to carry no sponsor logo, but they made damn sure everyone knew about it and it's more in line with their brand image. I don't see Parks of Hamilton going down the snarky social media presence route any time soon, and normally, actually advertising your brand is the useful way of spending your advertising budget...

Aye, fair enough. I was thinking maybe the other directors said to Park ‘Can we use your buses for nothing?’ and he said ‘Aye, but we’re not having any car dealers advertising inside Ibrox’. Park maybe feels like he doesn’t need to advertise his company to Rangers fans because they all know of his association with the club. It means Rangers can sell the advertising space to somebody else. So, they benefit from selling the space and getting free buses. Park’s benefit from not having any adverts from competitors inside Ibrox.
As I said before, I’m just trying to make sense of their case and this is the best I can do.

[Aim Here]

Rangers (via the Glasgow Times) offering a curious half-denial to the allegations of the cinch/Rangers "negotiations":

"At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers. Contrary to the SPFL's claims, no "negotiations" took place."

So why only half the denial? Did Rangers offer terms to cinch and if not, why doesn't that form part of the denial?

And why is "negotiations" in inverted commas? Would being asked for a quote, offering a price and being told 'nah, that's a big much for us' constitute a "negotiation", say?

I expect that what actually transpired, whether or not you call it a negotiation, is already clear to m'learned friends so this semantic quibble is just for public consumption...

Edited September 23, 2021 by Aim Here