New SPFL sponsor

[Hoose Rice]

24 minutes ago, ahemps said:

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

 

 

With a shit load of publicity already. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

23 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said:

With a shit load of publicity already. 

It's not doing Rylan any good.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rylan-clark-neal-husband-split-b1873804.html

[Orbix]

11 hours ago, Aim Here said:

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.

You say this, but the relevant articles of the SFA almost perfectly describe the situation;
 

Quote

The submission of a Football Dispute to arbitration by a member or associated person (“the Referring Party”) shall be lodged in writing by delivery to the Secretary and, at the same time, to the other party
or parties to the Football Dispute of a notice to refer to arbitration (a “Notice to Refer”), which notice
shall include (i) the nature and a brief description of the dispute and of the parties involved; (ii) details of where and when the dispute has arisen; (iii) the nature of the redress which is sought; and (iv) the names and addresses of the parties to the contract (including, where appropriate, the addresses which the parties have specified for the giving of notices). The last date on which the Notice to Refer is served on the other parties and the Secretary shall be deemed to be the date on which the arbitral proceedings are commenced.
99.17 Where a Football Dispute has been referred to arbitration, each such member or any associated person involved in the Football Dispute shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and shall adhere to the provisions in this Article 99.

(There’s similar wording to the SFA dispute arbitration process as well, )

The definition of ‘associated person’ is Article 1.1

Quote

means any body or person who is involved in Association Football in Scotland under the auspices of or pursuant to a contract with a member;

Parks have a contract with Rangers, an SFA member. They are, under the regulations and articles of association of the SFA, an associated person in the dispute, and agree to be bound by the decision of any arranged Tribunal under the terms.

To make that explicit, 99.28 says

Quote

Any Scottish FA Dispute or Football Dispute decided under the procedure referred to in this Article 99 shall be final and binding on the Parties.

If the SFA didn’t expect there to be parties outside football involved in disputes under this kind of resolution, they’d not have included the phrase ‘associated person’, and would have just used ‘member’.

It’s not ‘a weird legal trick’ to make the SFA play by their own rules. 

[Hoose Rice]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It's not doing Rylan any good.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rylan-clark-neal-husband-split-b1873804.html

Maybe he traded his ex in for a better newer model? 

[ahemps]

22 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

With a shit load of publicity already. 

I am not sure they will be overly delighted with the publicity, it may be funny to football fans for this sort of drama to play out but Cinch believed they were entering into a sponsorship deal and they are not getting what they paid for.

I can't imagine they will be queuing up to sponsor the SPFL after this.

[Buddie Holly]

23 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I am not sure they will be overly delighted with the publicity, it may be funny to football fans for this sort of drama to play out but Cinch believed they were entering into a sponsorship deal and they are not getting what they paid for.

I can't imagine they will be queuing up to sponsor the SPFL after this.

don’t kid yourself,cinch will be loving this with their company appearing in back page stories and as a bonus they’re also featuring in the news sections

most people didn’t have a clue who cinch were until sevco gave them all this free advertising 

[ahemps]

11 minutes ago, Buddie Holly said:

don’t kid yourself,cinch will be loving this with their company appearing in back page stories and as a bonus they’re also featuring in the news sections

most people didn’t have a clue who cinch were until sevco gave them all this free advertising 

Do you think Cinch are happy every time Gerrard is interviewed after a game and it appears on Sky Sports News and their logo isn't on the background?

How many people read the Scottish Daily Record to how many people watch Sky Sports News in the UK?

I think the longer this goes on the wee bit extra publicity they got at the start is not worth the lack of advertising that they have paid for that isn't happening will start to p!ss them off.

[ropy]

8 minutes ago, ahemps said:

Do you think Cinch are happy every time Gerrard is interviewed after a game and it appears on Sky Sports News and their logo isn't on the background?

How many people read the Scottish Daily Record to how many people watch Sky Sports News in the UK?

I think the longer this goes on the wee bit extra publicity they got at the start is not worth the lack of advertising that they have paid for that isn't happening will start to p!ss them off.

I haven’t looked but when Gerrard gets interviewed at an away match is he still standing away from the sponsors board?

[ahemps]

5 minutes ago, ropy said:

I haven’t looked but when Gerrard gets interviewed at an away match is he still standing away from the sponsors board?

Tell me he hasn't been doing this 

[ropy]

9 minutes ago, ahemps said:

Tell me he hasn't been doing this 

I remember the United game in August he was interviewed on the pitch with no board behind him

[Hoose Rice]

3 hours ago, ahemps said:

I am not sure they will be overly delighted with the publicity, it may be funny to football fans for this sort of drama to play out but Cinch believed they were entering into a sponsorship deal and they are not getting what they paid for.

I can't imagine they will be queuing up to sponsor the SPFL after this.

I disagree.  They enter these deals so as many people as possible hear about their brand.  This has been maximum exposure of the cinch name in terms of to your Scottish football fan, and I’m sure that was the aim. 

[Hoose Rice]

1 hour ago, ropy said:

I remember the United game in August he was interviewed on the pitch with no board behind him

That’s probably more the **** giving sky terms of interviews and sky jumping.

[realmadrid]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

Tell me he hasn't been doing this 

He certainly did in Perth. 

Sky set up in one position to interview Callum Davidson then moved for Gerrard.

[Orbix]

The decision by the court, and the reasoning behind involving Park's is available here;

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csih61.pdf?sfvrsn=f0711814_1

Quote

It is not now disputed that the balance of convenience favours the petitioners. The focus is therefore on a single question; has a prima facie case been made out?

At the interim stage, it is not normally appropriate for the court to reach a definitive conclusion on the merits of the petition. Nevertheless, in a case where all the facts are known, the point of construction is well focused and the court has heard a full argument on the applicable law, it may be of considerable benefit to the parties if the court felt able to express a preliminary view (cf Reed Stenhouse (UK) v Brodie 1986 SLT 354, LJC (Wheatley), delivering the opinion of the court, at 358).

[16] It is, of course, correct to describe arbitration as a private process. A standard arbitration clause in a commercial contract is unlikely to permit intervention by a third party. Whether it does must depend on the particular wording of the clause. If it does permit a third party to intervene, they will become a party to the arbitration and will be bound by its decree (Brown v Gardner 1739 Mor 5659).

[17] A contract must be construed objectively, contextually, purposively, and in a manner which accords with commercial common sense (Ardmair Bay Holdings v Craig 2020 SLT 549 (Lord Drummond Young, delivering the opinion of the court, at para [47] et seq). 

[18] Article 99.1 refers to “parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA”. That is in relation to the power to refer disputes to arbitration, which only a member of the SFA or an associate has. The petitioners are not attempting to refer the dispute to arbitration. They wish to participate in a prospective arbitration process. It is in relation to that process that the phrase a “party … with an interest in the Dispute” appears relative to the potential participants. Article 99.19(a) does not restrict intimation of the Secretary’s Notice to parties who are subject to the SFA’s jurisdiction.

[19] The words of Article 99.19(a) should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they occur, having regard to the Article’s purpose and common sense. Applying that meaning, both the petitioners and Cinch have an interest in the dispute between Rangers and the SPFL. The phrase occurs in the context of an arbitration clause whose purpose is to prevent disputes relating to football and football clubs being litigated in the public forum. The airing of such disputes may carry a reputational risk to the game and its participants which the SFA, as the supervisory body, will be keen to avoid. These disputes may not always be confined to members of the SFA, the SPFL or associated persons. A clause which permits third parties with an interest to enter the arbitration process, and thereby be bound by it, accords with common sense. It carries with it the prospect of the whole dispute being resolved in one process rather than being partially settled but with satellite litigation to follow. The third parties cannot be compelled to agree to arbitration, but they may be anxious to do so.

[20] There is at least a prima facie case. It is impossible to find fault in the Lord Ordinary’s approach. The reclaiming motion must be refused.

So it appears that Rangers and Park's renegotiated their contract on the 17 May, before the SPFL had petitioned it's members on the 8th June (and when Rangers had informed them of their inability to fulfil the sponsorship agreement) and before they had sold the rights to Cinch on the 10th June, but after Cinch had attempted to negotiate with the club on naming rights in 'early 2021'. 

Given all that, it might be that a restrictive clause for advertising was inserted after Cinch (or a broker) came to Rangers looking at what opportunities were available, and Park's realised that it wouldn't look good to have a direct competitor blazoned across the stands and concourses. Seems fair, and even if that clause was entirely restrictive and didn't require adverts for Park's themselves in return, it'd still make some commercial sense and be, I think, perfectly legal and enforceable. 

Most importantly, the SFA's arguments have fallen on their arse, the Courts have agreed that a contract substantial enough that Park's are an interested party to the arbitration exists and that they should be included in it, and the SPFL are run by fucking idiots, who it appears have made an absolute c**t of the whole situation. Wonderful.
 

[coprolite]

On 03/11/2021 at 14:51, Orbix said:

The decision by the court, and the reasoning behind involving Park's is available here;

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csih61.pdf?sfvrsn=f0711814_1

So it appears that Rangers and Park's renegotiated their contract on the 17 May, before the SPFL had petitioned it's members on the 8th June (and when Rangers had informed them of their inability to fulfil the sponsorship agreement) and before they had sold the rights to Cinch on the 10th June, but after Cinch had attempted to negotiate with the club on naming rights in 'early 2021'. 

Given all that, it might be that a restrictive clause for advertising was inserted after Cinch (or a broker) came to Rangers looking at what opportunities were available, and Park's realised that it wouldn't look good to have a direct competitor blazoned across the stands and concourses. Seems fair, and even if that clause was entirely restrictive and didn't require adverts for Park's themselves in return, it'd still make some commercial sense and be, I think, perfectly legal and enforceable. 

Most importantly, the SFA's arguments have fallen on their arse, the Courts have agreed that a contract substantial enough that Park's are an interested party to the arbitration exists and that they should be included in it, and the SPFL are run by fucking idiots, who it appears have made an absolute c**t of the whole situation. Wonderful.
 

It certainly looks like SPFL's view wasn't upheld. 

The timeline and events look plausible. 

No idea why you think an exclusivity clause would be enforceable off the back of this decision. 

No-one doubts that the SPFL are buffoons. Their buffoonery doesn't make Rangers right. 

[Orbix]

I don’t think an exclusivity clause would be enforceable off the back of the current decision that I posted.

That middle paragraph is what I think the timeline of events was, and that one exists in the contract between Park’s and Rangers, which would be the basis of Rangers defence against the SPFL in the upcoming tribunal. 

[ropy]

On 22/10/2021 at 11:00, ahemps said:

Tell me he hasn't been doing this 

It has taken me until tonight to watch Sunday’s match and Gerrard gets interviewed on the pitch, no sponsor board, so not only cinch getting snubbed.

[Aim Here]

4 hours ago, coprolite said:

It certainly looks like SPFL's view wasn't upheld. 

The timeline and events look plausible. 

No idea why you think an exclusivity clause would be enforceable off the back of this decision. 

No-one doubts that the SPFL are buffoons. Their buffoonery doesn't make Rangers right. 

This ruling isn't about the SPFL or Rangers. It's between Parks and the SFA as to whether Parks have the right to show up to the SFA's arbitration hearing between the SPFL and Rangers.

 

On 03/11/2021 at 14:51, Orbix said:

Given all that, it might be that a restrictive clause for advertising was inserted after Cinch (or a broker) came to Rangers looking at what opportunities were available, and Park's realised that it wouldn't look good to have a direct competitor blazoned across the stands and concourses. Seems fair, and even if that clause was entirely restrictive and didn't require adverts for Park's themselves in return, it'd still make some commercial sense and be, I think, perfectly legal and enforceable.

What's interesting is that even at this late date, Rangers are refusing to even say the nature of the contract terms that conflict with the SPFL rulebook, let alone let the lawyers have a peep at the contract itself.

Also your timeline leaves out that the news has reported that Rangers were apparently in discussions with cinch to have their name very much blazoned across the stands and concourses right up until June 7th, which is long after this supposedly conflicting contract was renewed (Rangers carefully-worded non-denial denial aside). Contrary to your assertion, it certainly doesn't seem fair for Rangers to have been talking to cinch in bad faith when they knew fine well that they couldn't offer cinch what it wanted. How much judges would tolerate parties acting in bad faith towards their contractual partners is a matter for debate...

Edited November 4, 2021 by Aim Here

[Orbix]

I did mention that in the first paragraph.

I’m of the opinion that some kind of lockout clause is agreed to by companies looking to sponsor the club and the club itself, and the expiry of that lockout was 7th June. Agreeing to exclusivity before any concrete discussions take place allows both sides some freedom from gazumping or shopping around. Crucially it wouldn’t constitute actual negotiations either. Make the period 90 days plus and it ties into the ‘early 2021’ date given by Rangers, but invalidates nothing in Lord Keen’s statement to the court;

Quote

“The fact is that right up to June 7, Rangers Football Club Limited was negotiating with cinch to sell them the naming rights to Ibrox so it became the cinch Ibrox Stadium and of course that was a proposal of considerable value to Rangers Football Club Ltd. 

but also invalidates nothing in Rangers statement either, dependent on whether you see offering prices in a fixed time window as a negation for the duration of that window.

To add to my earlier timeline for clarity;

cinch approach Rangers in early 2021, during a period in which they are signing multiple sponsorship deals in an aggressive growth period. They and the club agree to a lockout clause for X days, but upon Rangers dusting off the big catalog 1 of prices, cinch decide  that it’s too much and not for them.². If you interpret it one way, the expiry of a lockout clause would be ‘negotiations up to 7th June’, but I don’t think there’s anything really there that would stop Rangers from  proving their case against the SPFL in any event. We’ll not know til the papers are released.

^{1 not the one with the CD player in a giant can.}

²If I were contractually limited at this point from negotiating a sponsorship deal directly with any other body in Scottish football, this might be where I employed a handsomely paid agency to draft one for the day after such a limitation expired.

Also, Cinch and Rangers, even if they were in negotiations, wouldn’t have been contractual partners, so is your assertion in your second paragraph that the courts would look unkindly at Rangers behaviour towards Parks?

[ropy]

If this doesn’t get resolved (in the SPFL’s favour) what will Rangers do if they happen to win the league? Refuse to touch a trophy with ribbons on?