Fife Saint Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Eh? The SPFL rule book should be torn up b'cos Doncaster made a baws of it? Are you unhinged?I don't know what the rule is and I'm pretty sure they have fucked it up but if they want to mitigate commercial sponsorship risk in future then they MUST do something, it's in the interests of the members in general by the look of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 6 hours ago, Fife Saint said: 16 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Eh? The SPFL rule book should be torn up b'cos Doncaster made a baws of it? Are you unhinged? I don't know what the rule is and I'm pretty sure they have fucked it up but if they want to mitigate commercial sponsorship risk in future then they MUST do something, it's in the interests of the members in general by the look of it. The rule seems to be that any commercial deal negotiated by the SPFL can't conflict with extant club arrangements/contracts/deals. And that is fair enough. I'm not sure how you can have a different approach. Now I don't entirely trust Rangers when it comes to commercial arrangements but I 'think' they are right here. They flagged up that the Cinch deal conflicted with a contract they already had in place but Doncaster went ahead with Cinch anyway. When challenged in court to produce said agreement they did so - and that was accepted by the court. So on the face of it the SPFL rule book is fine. Rangers' contract seems fine. The one that should be discarded is Doncaster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 On 06/06/2022 at 16:39, The_Kincardine said: The rule seems to be that any commercial deal negotiated by the SPFL can't conflict with extant club arrangements/contracts/deals. And that is fair enough. I'm not sure how you can have a different approach. Now I don't entirely trust Rangers when it comes to commercial arrangements but I 'think' they are right here. They flagged up that the Cinch deal conflicted with a contract they already had in place but Doncaster went ahead with Cinch anyway. When challenged in court to produce said agreement they did so - and that was accepted by the court. So on the face of it the SPFL rule book is fine. Rangers' contract seems fine. The one that should be discarded is Doncaster. Maybe if Rangers had taken the cinch money (is anyone going to get the cinch money?) they could have kept the prices of their strips within the law. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 On 06/06/2022 at 16:39, The_Kincardine said: The rule seems to be that any commercial deal negotiated by the SPFL can't conflict with extant club arrangements/contracts/deals. And that is fair enough. I'm not sure how you can have a different approach. Now I don't entirely trust Rangers when it comes to commercial arrangements but I 'think' they are right here. They flagged up that the Cinch deal conflicted with a contract they already had in place but Doncaster went ahead with Cinch anyway. When challenged in court to produce said agreement they did so - and that was accepted by the court. So on the face of it the SPFL rule book is fine. Rangers' contract seems fine. The one that should be discarded is Doncaster. That's only part of the story. The rules do provide for clubs to withold their properties where the commercial agreement by the spfl conflicts with existing contracts. The rules also state that clubs need to make certain property available for sponsorship. If Rangers have entered into an exclusive agreement that means they can't deliver sponsorship obligations, they are about as far from "in the right" as it is possible to be. I guess that the clause about prior contracts is meant to protect against the spfl agreeing to commercial contracts that put obligations on clubs over and above the reserved sponsorship rights. I also think that it does remove Rangers obligation to comply with Cinch sponsorship. But Rangers have clearly breached their obligations to the spfl and all its member clubs and should be treated as a pariah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 I’ve no real idea who is right and who is wrong, the arbitration panel can decide that. My issue was it took a judges order, during a separate case, for this conflicting contract to appear. The rangers board could have shown it to the spfl board way back when they informed the clubs about the cinch deal but they never. They were playing the awkward card again.I just hope the spfl have withheld their £3.75 share of the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 2 minutes ago, steelmen said: I’ve no real idea who is right and who is wrong, the arbitration panel can decide that. My issue was it took a judges order, during a separate case, for this conflicting contract to appear. The rangers board could have shown it to the spfl board way back when they informed the clubs about the cinch deal but they never. They were playing the awkward card again. I just hope the spfl have withheld their £3.75 share of the money. Rangers are wrong...always. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squonk Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 (edited) Good luck to those who think that the currant current club playing out of Ibrox is likely to win any legal or arbitration case after the catalogue of costly litigation it has fought and lost in the past decade, although by the law of averages they must be due a win soon. Dave King has now entered the debate with assurances that he insisted everything was done by the book during his tenure at Ibrox with regard to contractual matters including the current cinch/SPFL impasse. He didn't say whether 'by the book' referred to the War and Peace length epic 'My Giant Book of Blatant Lies, Porky Pies and Outright Bollox' wot he rote about his personal experiences on the journey from Castlemilk to South of the Limpopo and beyond. Edited June 8, 2022 by Squonk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 On 07/06/2022 at 17:16, kingjoey said: Maybe if Rangers had taken the cinch money (is anyone going to get the cinch money?) they could have kept the prices of their strips within the law. Harsh but fair. I did say earlier I don't trust Rangers' contracts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 On 08/06/2022 at 19:15, Squonk said: Good luck to those who think that the currant current club playing out of Ibrox is likely to win any legal or arbitration case after the catalogue of costly litigation it has fought and lost in the past decade, although by the law of averages they must be due a win soon. Dave King has now entered the debate with assurances that he insisted everything was done by the book during his tenure at Ibrox with regard to contractual matters including the current cinch/SPFL impasse. He didn't say whether 'by the book' referred to the War and Peace length epic 'My Giant Book of Blatant Lies, Porky Pies and Outright Bollox' wot he rote about his personal experiences on the journey from Castlemilk to South of the Limpopo and beyond. Hellbhoy, definitely the QC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, bennett said: Hellbhoy, definitely the QC. Who's Clown Job? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 33 minutes ago, Moomintroll said: Who's Clown Job? A few folk were saying it's Mags but I'm not so sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 13 minutes ago, bennett said: A few folk were saying it's Mags but I'm not so sure. Nah Mags is Mags & evermore shall be, sure they are a previously banned poster though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 Scottish football sponsorship feud delivered cinch profile boost, YouGov suggests 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 (edited) On 05/06/2022 at 23:35, The_Kincardine said: Eh? The SPFL rule book should be torn up b'cos Doncaster made a baws of it? Are you unhinged? "Torn up" is a bit overdramatic but "clarified" would be sensible. Fundamentally this came about because the rules were written on the assumption that the league would always have a sponsor and this assumption didn't hold. Unless we're willing to believe that this was a one off situation that could never happen again they should add some kind of policy to deal with the contingency. I'd suggest something along the lines of "If the league hasn't made a sale by the end of June then individual clubs should be free to take matters into their own hands but can't make contracts that bind them for more than a season allowing the league to try again next season" but what it says isn't as important as the fact that it exists. Similarly I think we should have rules in place to deal with the contingency that at some point in the future it's again not possible to play a 38 game season and hope that they're never used Edited June 15, 2022 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 SPFL have folded (after spending a shitload of cash) and the new agreement with Cinch sells them more of the SPFL rights for the same money. https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-negotiates-new-cinch-deal Quote The SPFL have agreed a revised title sponsorship deal with cinch, effective immediately, which protects cinch’s pivotal investment into Scottish football. Neil Doncaster, chief executive of the SPFL, said: “Under the terms of the revised cinch contract, Rangers are no longer required to participate by providing the sponsorship inventory that they have so far not provided, whilst, crucially, the overall income to Scottish football is expected to remain materially unchanged over the original five-year term of the sponsorship. “This revised package has now been approved by cinch Premiership Clubs. “It’s extremely good news that we have been able to work with our partners at cinch to develop an updated sponsorship package which delivers the same level of financial support to Scottish football, whilst providing additional SPFL media assets to cinch to compensate for loss of Rangers-related rights. It is testament to the strength of our relationship with cinch, and the high value they place on it, that they have agreed to move forward with us on this basis. “This deal gives us further confidence that we will exceed our budget and deliver fees to Clubs of more than £27.5 million for Season 2021/22.” Murdoch MacLennan, chairman of the SPFL, added: “This is a great outcome for the entire game in Scotland. Our friends at cinch have been brilliant to deal with throughout this whole process. “There is so much to celebrate in the SPFL as cinch and our clubs look forward with excitement to the launch of the 2022/23 fixture list this Friday.” A spokesman for cinch said: “We welcome the evolution of our agreement with the SPFL and are proud of our continued investment into Scottish football across all four cinch SPFL leagues. We are very much looking forward to next season and to continuing the stellar growth of our business in Scotland." Whatever the opposite of cinched it is, cazooed? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 Sounds like they're actually selling less for the same money unless you think Rangers' branding rights are worthless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapowzer Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 So do the Cinch fan club still get a cut of the money? Dougie Park must be sitting in the lodge with his MAGA hat on tonight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 11 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Sounds like they're actually selling less for the same money unless you think Rangers' branding rights are worthless. “whilst providing additional SPFL media assets to cinch to compensate for loss of Rangers-related rights.” The statement is only eight paragraphs, come on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 So you think Rangers' branding rights are worth less than some of the shitty stuff the SPFL didn't even originally consider worth selling? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbix Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 7 minutes ago, craigkillie said: So you think Rangers' branding rights are worth less than some of the shitty stuff the SPFL didn't even originally consider worth selling? Yes, I think this clear loss for the SPFL, both reputationally and financially, is actually a win for *reasons* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.