New SPFL sponsor

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, bennett said:

It's from the sun so maybe not spot on but if it's in the rules...

 

" And SunSport can reveal their argument centres around Rule I7 in the SPFL rulebook - which they believe allows them to snub certain terms of the five-year contract.
It states clubs are NOT “obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned"

 

Rangers haven't claimed they would be in breach of other contracts they just don't think they are getting enough money.

[bennett]

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Rangers haven't claimed they would be in breach of other contracts they just don't think they are getting enough money.

Speculation. 

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

It's from the sun so maybe not spot on but if it's in the rules...

 

" And SunSport can reveal their argument centres around Rule I7 in the SPFL rulebook - which they believe allows them to snub certain terms of the five-year contract.
It states clubs are NOT “obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned"

 

That’s a ridiculous rule to be honest 

 

[The Master]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

It's from the sun so maybe not spot on but if it's in the rules...

 

" And SunSport can reveal their argument centres around Rule I7 in the SPFL rulebook - which they believe allows them to snub certain terms of the five-year contract.
It states clubs are NOT “obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned"

 

Presumably it’s the company that entered into the prior commercial agreement so there should be no problem with the club displaying the cinch sponsorship. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

While watching the set up the flag raising at Tynecastle I was struck by  the fact that cinch we’re sticking their branding all over a Scottish championship win that they weren’t actually sponsors of.

 

[Theyellowbox]

2 hours ago, bennett said:

It's from the sun so maybe not spot on but if it's in the rules...

 

" And SunSport can reveal their argument centres around Rule I7 in the SPFL rulebook - which they believe allows them to snub certain terms of the five-year contract.
It states clubs are NOT “obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned"

 

So if I read that correct, Rangers argument would be that the cinch deal crosses over with one they have already? If so, then probably the question to be asked is did Rangers make that known when the cinch deal was being discussed/agreed and what was done/not done about it?

Whatever the value of the deal, it is the best the league could get, so if a member club has an alternative, they should be fronting up.

Does this kind of thing happen in other countries or are we just a total basketcase of a country when it comes to domestic  football?

Regardless of the ins and outs, what is clear is that those in charge of the game in Scotland have lost complete control. Poor deals, mess up of Covid, inability to properly punish clubs and frankly a dereliction of duty to all clubs.

We have an incredibly exciting product here and no one can get proper value from it and a handful of clubs seem determined to kill it from within for whatever reason. 

[bennett]

7 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

So if I read that correct, Rangers argument would be that the cinch deal crosses over with one they have already? If so, then probably the question to be asked is did Rangers make that known when the cinch deal was being discussed/agreed and what was done/not done about it?

Whatever the value of the deal, it is the best the league could get, so if a member club has an alternative, they should be fronting up.

Does this kind of thing happen in other countries or are we just a total basketcase of a country when it comes to domestic  football?

Regardless of the ins and outs, what is clear is that those in charge of the game in Scotland have lost complete control. Poor deals, mess up of Covid, inability to properly punish clubs and frankly a dereliction of duty to all clubs.

We have an incredibly exciting product here and no one can get proper value from it and a handful of clubs seem determined to kill it from within for whatever reason. 

From the same Sun article, I've no idea how accurate this is.

 

" Crucially, they also insist the SPFL failed to formally write to clubs before the deal was struck"

 

[Theyellowbox]

4 minutes ago, bennett said:

From the same Sun article, I've no idea how accurate this is.

 

" Crucially, they also insist the SPFL failed to formally write to clubs before the deal was struck"

 

I suppose though, would clubs be given advance notice of potential deals if they did not have a member on the board? I dont know one way or another as to whether they would. Gut feel is that for a major one like a league sponsor, that kind of info would be known by clubs, formally or informally.

Going by Rangers argument, if a league sponsorship deal is of less value than a deal Rangers can strike on their own, (which you would assume their share of any deal would be less than one on their own), then we will never end up with a league sponsor. It would have to be from a business or sector that hasn't already done a deal with Rangers, which would be unlikely given the small pool of potential sponsors, betting firms, drinks firms, car sales companies.....

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

the most likely end game is that cinch are shaken down for a bit more cash to compensate  Parks of Hamilton for stepping back

in the meantime cinch and Parks are both getting more brand exposure than they would have otherwise so there’s nothing hurrying them

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

17 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

the most likely end game is that cinch are shaken down for a bit more cash to compensate  Parks of Hamilton for stepping back

in the meantime cinch and Parks are both getting more brand exposure than they would have otherwise so there’s nothing hurrying them

Is there not risk of the opposite?

Naturally Cinch will get the best exposure from games most watched on TV/in person. 

If they're not getting the exposure they expected due to Rangers boycotting you could see less money being paid/cinch triggering termination of the deal early as I imagine there will be clauses along those lines to protect both sides. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Mr Positive, sometimes.

[Ray Patterson]

Rangers will climb down and have egg on their face by the end of it. Their fans will laud it as the establishment being against them, and the Ibrox board will use it to further entrench their "battle fever" siege mentality.
 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

It's encouraged me to now always use the correct branding when discussing the cinch Premiership, the cinch Championship, cinch League One and also cinch League Two.

cinch - Cars Without the Faff™

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, Clown Job said:

That’s a ridiculous rule to be honest 

 

 Yep. There's plenty of provisions in there that stop clubs granting exclusivity over broadcast rights through various media. Nothing specific to prevent clubs giving exclusivity over sponsorship. Except that the strip rules state that the club must display the league sponsor. 

So (if this is what the dispute is about) Rangers would be perfectly correct that I7 means that they don't have to make facilities available to deliver a commercial contract. They do have to display the logo  on their kit though. 

If there is a conflict between different parts of the rules, it would be because of how Rangers have arranged their contracts and not an inherent contradiction in the rules. 

[speculation] Looks like Rangers might have got themselves in a position where they have to breach a contract and have chosen to break the one that affects everyone else not the one they could have dealt with internally and quietly. Which seems unlike them. 

 

[coprolite]

51 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

the most likely end game is that cinch are shaken down for a bit more cash to compensate  Parks of Hamilton for stepping back

in the meantime cinch and Parks are both getting more brand exposure than they would have otherwise so there’s nothing hurrying them

 

33 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Is there not risk of the opposite?

Naturally Cinch will get the best exposure from games most watched on TV/in person. 

If they're not getting the exposure they expected due to Rangers boycotting you could see less money being paid/cinch triggering termination of the deal early as I imagine there will be clauses along those lines to protect both sides. 

Absolutely. No sponsor will be paying more here. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

41 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Is there not risk of the opposite?

Naturally Cinch will get the best exposure from games most watched on TV/in person. 

If they're not getting the exposure they expected due to Rangers boycotting you could see less money being paid/cinch triggering termination of the deal early as I imagine there will be clauses along those lines to protect both sides. 

That’s also a possibility.

There’s so many actors in this game that a myriad of outcomes are possible 

My suggestion was the cleanest and simplest but if Neil Doncaster and 42 individual clubs are involved it could get very messy indeed.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

If the league had made tried to make everyone  carry the logo of a cancer charity on their shirt when Hearts already have a motor neurone disease one I’d be furious 

 

 

[Todd_is_God]

2 hours ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Naturally Cinch will get the best exposure from games most watched on TV/in person. 

There won't be many games from Ibrox on TV, though, meaning all that would be missing is a sleeve patch (the one below) on one team's kit.

[kingjoey]

This is just one more example of Rangers simply wanting the game played by their rules and hang everyone else. They want to dictate to the BBC who can and cannot seek gainful employment within their stadium, they want to dictate who they talk to after a championship win, despite the fact that the sponsorship deal which rangers are part of states something different, and they want to be the only one of 42 SPFL clubs who do not follow the new sponsorship deal with cinch.  They obviously don’t want to be part of Scottish football, so just let them drift off to whichever national football association will take them.

Edit: I’d go as far as saying that Rangers, as an organisation, is simply a bully.

Edited August 3, 2021 by kingjoey

[TheScarf]

7 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

It's encouraged me to now always use the correct branding when discussing the cinch Premiership, the cinch Championship, cinch League One and also cinch League Two.

cinch - Cars Without the Faff™

You’re in the driving seat now, Sheriff.

[Newbornbairn]

Quote

Fears are growing that new SPFL sponsor cinch may pull the plug on its £8m package over an increasingly bitter stand-off with Rangers. (Daily Record)

Great deal for Cinch if true. Masses of publicity for a brand very few had heard of a few months ago and they only have to cough up a fraction of that £8m.