Jump to content

New SPFL sponsor


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Second hand car salesman legal challenge. Sums up that club tbf.

I like to think the Rangers players are all driving around in 1992 Volvo estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they refuse to go along with terms agreed with the governing body they belong to, then the simple answer is let them leave that governing body.

No more Rangers in the Scottish league, problem solved, they have to lie in the shit they created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

If they refuse to go along with terms agreed with the governing body they belong to, then the simple answer is let them leave that governing body.

No more Rangers in the Scottish league, problem solved, they have to lie in the shit they created.

The **** are not happy unless they’re in dispute with someone.

It’s in their DNA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

Assume Rylan will be barred fae Ibrox?

why no? everyone else is! Reckon Rylan will present the trophy a la Howard from the Bank of Scotland adverts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ric said:

Well, well, well... imagine those running Rangers being childish c***s because the SPFL are sponsored by a rival company to the Chairman's.

If the SPFL have left any legal loopholes in the new sponsor's contract then more fool them as this should have been seen coming. We all know what Rangers are like.

Personally I hope that Rangers fail in their legal bid, and Park is forced to watch his team play while advertising his rivals.

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 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.

So it's just coincidence that the only sponsorship Rangers have "tried to block" is one that is in the same sector as your chairman? A sponsorship that could be reasonably considered to hit the profits of the chairman's company. Quite the alignment of stars there.

Secondly this is all just painfully tedious. Why do Rangers always have to act in a knee-jerk reaction, after the fact, as if they are the ones permanently wronged? They act at times as if the whole footballing structure is set up purely to benefit them and nobody else, crying like children with any perceived slight. This is why a solid minority of fans absolutely loath your club.

 

btw, this isn't ignoring the many failings the SPFL have had, this isn't a "Rangers bad/SPFL good" mutual exclusivity argument.

 

 

Edit: I do wonder if this is in fact some tedious power-play to force B teams into the lower leagues - "We'll accept the sponsorship deal we don't like so long as you allow us to increase our already overwhelming advantage"

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

So it's just coincidence that the only sponsorship Rangers have "tried to block" is one that is in the same sector as your chairman? A sponsorship that could be reasonably considered to hit the profits of the chairman's company. Quite the alignment of stars there.

Secondly this is all just painfully tedious. Why do Rangers always have to act in a knee-jerk reaction, after the fact, as if they are the ones permanently wronged? They act at times as if the whole footballing structure is set up purely to benefit them and nobody else, crying like children with any perceived slight. This is why a solid minority of fans absolutely loath your club.

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.

According to the article we've been in discussions with the spfl for some time now,  hardly a kneejerk reaction. 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ric said:

If they refuse to go along with terms agreed with the governing body they belong to, then the simple answer is let them leave that governing body.

No more Rangers in the Scottish league, problem solved, they have to lie in the shit they created.

L.m.a.o

A lot of angry wee men on here today. I wonder why... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bennett said:

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.

By equal token you know nothing of the reasons, so equally you should take a step back from defending a bunch of permanently painfully tedious c***s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SANTAN said:

L.m.a.o

A lot of angry wee men on here today. I wonder why... 

If you are wishing to throw out "small dick energy" claims then I'll list every tear stained statement your club has come out with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

By equal token you know nothing of the reasons, so equally you should take a step back from defending a bunch of permanently painfully tedious c***s.

Ofcourse I don't know and I haven't said that I do, you're being a bit silly here Ric.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ric said:

If you are wishing to throw out "small dick energy" claims then I'll list every tear stained statement your club has come out with.

It's just class how worked up and angry some of you guys get over all things Rangers. You care about Rangers on some next level thing, you previously mentioned "permanently painful tedious p***ks" without a shred of irony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bennett said:

Ofcourse I don't know and I haven't said that I do, you're being a bit silly here Ric.

So your chastisement was fallacious? Fair enough, good to know I've got the OK from you to continue posting. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...