New SPFL sponsor

[Orbix]

So it’ll have no impact on the facts of the dispute between the SPFL and Rangers then. 
 

Glad we all agree. 
 

[Aim Here]

27 minutes ago, Orbix said:

So it’ll have no impact on the facts of the dispute between the SPFL and Rangers then. 
 

Glad we all agree. 
 

Nobody's agreeing to that.

We don't have visibility on the actual documents - not even the judges and SPFL lawyers have that - but if, as seems likely, Rangers were quoting a price to offer cinch the stadium naming rights after they had signed a contract forbidding cinch logos from appearing at Ibrox even as part of the SPFL branding, then there will be some questions asked as to Rangers making offers in bad faith that they know they're unable to fulfil, or, in the alternative, why Rangers feel entitled to only be bound by this contract when they want to get out of other contract obligations they don't want to fulfil.

[DukDukGoose]

33 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Nobody's agreeing to that.

We don't have visibility on the actual documents - not even the judges and SPFL lawyers have that - but if, as seems likely, Rangers were quoting a price to offer cinch the stadium naming rights after they had signed a contract forbidding cinch logos from appearing at Ibrox even as part of the SPFL branding, then there will be some questions asked as to Rangers making offers in bad faith that they know they're unable to fulfil, or, in the alternative, why Rangers feel entitled to only be bound by this contract when they want to get out of other contract obligations they don't want to fulfil.

It's not like they have history of entering in to one contract when still bound to another!

[topcat(The most tip top)]

8 hours ago, Aim Here said:

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...

 

My best guess is that an agent tried to set up the deal between Rangers and Cinch but it didn’t get very far so the two parties didn’t interact directly 

But I’ve been wrong about things on the internet before 

[Sergeant Wilson]

15 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

But I’ve been wrong about things on the internet before 

I'd imagine that must be quite embarrassing.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

37 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I'd imagine that must be quite embarrassing.

You're not wrong there!

Which is lucky, for obvious reasons

[bennett]

Since Cinch were already interested in  Scottish football and senior Cinch and spfl executives were already well acquainted, isn't it strange that £500k went to an outside agency to make the Introductions....

 

 

 

 

A senior executive at an online car dealership involved in a sponsorship row between Rangers and Scotland’s football chiefs used to work for the chairman of the Scottish league.

Robert Bridge was hired as the chief customer officer at Telegraph Media Group (TMG) in 2016 and reported directly to Murdoch MacLennan while he was running the business.

MacLennan now chairs the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). A five-year, £8 million package with Cinch, a car sales business, was announced by the SPFL in June

 

Concerns have also been raised an external agency would receive a fee of £500,000 for brokering the Cinch deal.

[Ric]

That's some cracking journalism, and entirely on brand for The Times who regularly try to correlate where there is no evidence. Their constant right wing propaganda demonstrates that well.

[craigkillie]

Since Cinch were already interested in  Scottish football and senior Cinch and spfl executives were already well acquainted, isn't it strange that £500k went to an outside agency to make the Introductions....
 
 
 
 
A senior executive at an online car dealership involved in a sponsorship row between Rangers and Scotland’s football chiefs used to work for the chairman of the Scottish league.

Robert Bridge was hired as the chief customer officer at Telegraph Media Group (TMG) in 2016 and reported directly to Murdoch MacLennan while he was running the business.

MacLennan now chairs the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). A five-year, £8 million package with Cinch, a car sales business, was announced by the SPFL in June
 
Concerns have also been raised an external agency would receive a fee of £500,000 for brokering the Cinch deal.

Maybe Rangers would have got their deal over the line if they'd hired experts to do it rather than trying to handle it in house and failing miserably.

[Aim Here]

Looks like Douglas Park gets to have two lawyers at the arbitration, not just one.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19660786.sfa-pay-price-rangers-chairman-douglas-park-wins-legal-dispute-spfl-8m-cinch-sponsorship/

I'm wondering if this also means that the SPFL gets to dig through the Parks of Hamilton filing cabinets for documents that don't match up with whatever case Rangers are making.

[bennett]

 

 

"Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known"

[Orbix]

46 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Looks like Douglas Park gets to have two lawyers at the arbitration, not just one.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19660786.sfa-pay-price-rangers-chairman-douglas-park-wins-legal-dispute-spfl-8m-cinch-sponsorship/

I'm wondering if this also means that the SPFL gets to dig through the Parks of Hamilton filing cabinets for documents that don't match up with whatever case Rangers are making.

Rangers and Parks win, with costs, and you’re using it as proof of them not having a case? Conspiracist nonsense.

[Aim Here]

38 minutes ago, Orbix said:

Rangers and Parks win, with costs, and you’re using it as proof of them not having a case? Conspiracist nonsense

Did something short-circuit your frontal lobes? You clearly don't understant what you've just read.

This ruling has absolutely f**k all to do with the merits or otherwise of the SPFL case, this is about whether Parks of Hamilton's lawyer gets to show up to arbitration. The SPFL were not a party to this ruling (neither were Rangers, despite your mischaracterization), this was between Parks of Hamilton and the SFA. Parks of Hamilton have effectively taken the *judges* to court and won a ruling on the conduct of the trial, and not one that has an immediate obvious effect on the merits of the case.

How this will affect the actual case - the one between the SPFL and Rangers - is not entirely clear, but given that they've just added another party to the case, it's likely that the SPFL will get to  discover evidence from Parks of Hamilton as well as Rangers. Sure, it's a nominal win for the Rangers side but it could just as easily backfire, if there's something in Parks of Hamilton's filing cabinet that doesn't match what Rangers have been telling the judges.

Hearts won themselves a preliminary ruling too, prior to arbitration - and that was against the actual defendant, the SPFL. This isn't even that.

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Aim Here

[Orbix]

I’m calling it conspiracist nonsense because the phrase ‘Sure, it's a nominal win for the Rangers side but it could just as easily backfire, if there's something in Parks of Hamilton's filing cabinet that doesn't match what Rangers have been telling the judges.’ is implying a conspiracy. 
 

Parks proving that they have a contractual relationship with Rangers strong enough that they should be included in the arbitration, when the existence of that contractual relationship is the crux of Rangers case against the SPFL, does have a bearing on the case, clearly. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Orbix

[coprolite]

38 minutes ago, Orbix said:

I’m calling it conspiracist nonsense because the phrase ‘Sure, it's a nominal win for the Rangers side but it could just as easily backfire, if there's something in Parks of Hamilton's filing cabinet that doesn't match what Rangers have been telling the judges.’ is inferring a conspiracy. 
 

Parks proving that they have a contractual relationship with Rangers strong enough that they should be included in the arbitration, when the existence of that contractual relationship is the crux of Rangers case against the SPFL, does have a bearing on the case, clearly. 

Not convinced that's the case. The recent decision, which hasn't been reported in detail looks like it is more procedural than fact based. That is, it's just decided that the original interdict from August is legally sound. It doesn't mean that the new judge agrees it should have been granted, just that it's not so dodgy that he can overturn it. He might agree with it and think it's great though, who knows. 

It's not clear what the basis of the original interdict was, simply that parks is "an interested party". Nothing published has shed any light on what that means. There were reports that the courts saw a contract. No reports that they discussed the nature or strength of that contract. No detail on how interested an interested party needs to be. 

Whether this is a victory for Rangers depends on why they made the challenge in the first place. 

If Rangers will genuinely benefit from Parks presence it is a win. 

It's hard to see how they will. 

If Rangers launch another procedural challenge it will become obvious that they're simply delaying. 

Again, not obvious what the benefit would be. (confirmation bias leads me to believe that it's so they don't have to pay compo and climb down, but other than Rangers being c***s there's little evidence for this.) 

Interesting that you see this as Rangers case against the SPFL. My automatic understanding was that it's the other way, but of course it is neither really, it's a two way dispute. Which i hope gets messy and embarrassing for all parties. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by coprolite

[Aim Here]

44 minutes ago, Orbix said:

I’m calling it conspiracist nonsense because the phrase ‘Sure, it's a nominal win for the Rangers side but it could just as easily backfire, if there's something in Parks of Hamilton's filing cabinet that doesn't match what Rangers have been telling the judges.’ is inferring a conspiracy.

The word you're looking for is 'implying' not 'inferring'.

And plenty of court cases have been settled one way or another when an incriminating document has been dug up and shows that one or other party wasn't entirely forthcoming with what they told the court, and their case is now ruined. That's not conspiracy any more than any other such court case - but then again, you can make the case that much of business, government, policing, crime, the work of the intelligence services and so on is just a series of little conspiracies.

And in any case, on the face of it, Rangers case is that they made an absolutely absurd contract with Parks of Hamilton that somehow a) didn't advertise Parks of Hamilton at Ibrox but b) precluded cinch from appearing in the SPFL sponsor logo at Ibrox and c) was signed before Rangers were in communication with cinch regarding renaming Ibrox (notwithstanding Rangers strange denial where they claim that cinch didn't offer terms to them, yet are silent on whether they - the supplier - offered terms to cinch, the prospective buyer, the usual way these things occur). None of this makes any kind of business sense, if we're taking Rangers at their word. Why would Parks pay for advertising exclusivity it doesn't use? Why would Rangers talk to cinch? Why haven't Rangers said whether they offered terms to cinch regarding the Ibrox sponsorship deal, despite them clearly denying the converse offer?

I've already pointed out that the "conspiratorial" turn of events - that the contract between Rangers and Park was nothing more than an attempt to undermine the SPFL and isn't part of the usual run of business for either party  - is actually the least unlikely one, because it's at least consistent with the motivations of the actors concerned. When you've eliminated the flagrantly absurd on the face of it, you're left with the merely unlikely.

I mean, Rangers contracts could be as weird as they claim and they could be in the right, but it's very much a bizarro-world way of doing business.

44 minutes ago, Orbix said:

Parks proving that they have a contractual relationship with Rangers strong enough that they should be included in the arbitration, when the existence of that contractual relationship is the crux of Rangers case against the SPFL, does have a bearing on the case, clearly. 

Well we only know that Parks should be in the arbitration now because the Court of Session settled it.

It's not actually obvious that Parks of Hamilton should be part of an arbitration run by an organization they've never joined and where they've never agreed to any of the multitude of obligations that other SFA members have to abide by. It's not as if any sanctions applied by the arbitrators can be legally enforced against Parks of Hamilton, since these are SFA sanctions, and the legal force is in the contracts that Rangers and the SPFL have with the SFA. Likewise it's not obvious that anyone with a contract with one of the parties to a real court case is a party to the case. If someone defrauds a bank by taking a contract you signed with them, adding a couple of extra zeroes to the money you're supposed to pay them, and then borrowing against it, the nature of the contract with you is very much part of the case, but you're not a party to the case, merely a witness.

Law is complicated and tricky and people don't know the answers until the judgements are in. You're not actually clever when you pretend court rulings are obvious when they're based on a whole pile of stuff that layfolk like you and me don't have a clue about.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Aim Here

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

9 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

It's not as if any sanctions applied by the arbitrators can be legally enforced against Parks of Hamilton, since these are SFA sanctions,

That is not true.

Arbitration is binding in Scotland and all parties agree to abide by the outcome.  The SFA are the arbitration body , but they only do the procedural things like appointment of suitable arbitrators and who is part of the process. They have nothing to do with deciding or enforcing the outcome.

[Aim Here]

2 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

That is not true.

Arbitration is binding in Scotland and all parties agree to abide by the outcome.  The SFA are the arbitration body , but they only do the procedural things like appointment of suitable arbitrators and who is part of the process. They have nothing to do with deciding or enforcing the outcome.

Except that Parks of Hamilton aren't SFA members; it's whatever papers you sign for SFA membership that generally constitutes the agreement to be bound by arbitration under the SFA process. And the SFA does 'decide' the outcome in that the outcome is determined by the SFA's rulebook.

Here, Parks seem to have found a legal route to forcing themselves into the arbitration process despite not having made the usual agreement to be bound by arbitration, and it's far from obvious, before the ruling that was upheld on today's appeal, that that would be the case.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Aim Here

[Kyle Reese]

As soon as you discover “Shifty McGiffty” McLennan was involved you just have to assume it’s wonky as f**k. Dodgy little Desmond minion that he is.

[ahemps]

If Rangers win their case then surely Cinch will have a case to just walk away from the contract?