DMax399

The SPFL are a classic example of amateurs trying to operate in the business world.  You simply don’t sign a contract if an existing contract restricts the fulfilment of the terms of a follow on contract unless exemptions are written into it. To do so exposes your business.  They were informed of this very situation yet carried on regardless. Reckless, incompetent and amateurish.  Doncaster not fit for purpose, and should be given a vote of no confidence by member clubs accordingly.

They created plenty due to Jablonec being just as open. I can't see anything there though that doesn't mean a repeat of Hearts (in terms of tactics) happening just about every week. 
The teams in our league aren't going to open up against them and will wait patiently for them to slip during games. Seen it all before with Warburton.

Can I be the first to congratulate UEFA on finally finding a team in Europe so awful that celtic can beat them?

£20m mate.  Just like the filth always get (apparently).

One thing I would say is our current board are no mugs. I believe in them wholeheartedly and don't think they would say publicly they have a deal if they don't. If that's the case that there is a deal there then well played Mr Robertson.

Doncaster and McLellan are a pair of arrogant pricks who should have been shown the door last year for their inept, underhand, disgraceful treatment of all clubs in order to hand a tainted title to their pet club. They would have been but incredibly the same clubs voted against an independent review in the face of blackmail and bullying. 
 
to go into last season with two of the biggest supported clubs in Europe going head to head in a momentous season without a league sponsor should have seen Doncaster sacked for poor performance but he got a wage increase instead. 
 
now to have the chairman knowingly lying about his CEO winning a deal that appears to have been secured by a third party, while simultaneously failing to inform the sponsor that the biggest club in the league would be unable to fulfill their obligations should see these two lying, bullying, arrogant , useless pricks sacked for negligence and incompetence. 
 
you couldn’t make this shit up

Robertson goes up in my estimation for the second time in weeks.
Sound letter.

Rangers have today hit back at the SPFL in a stinging letter sent to Scotland’s clubs.
The Ibrox club are at war with league chiefs over their £8million sponsorship with online car sales firm cinch.
Gers claim the £1.6m-a-year agreement clashes with the deal they have in place with chairman Douglas Park’s motor company.
And their lawyers argue rule I7 of the SPFL’s own rulebook allows them to snub the agreement.
That saw SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan email clubs earlier this week expressing ‘disappointment’ in Rangers over their stance.
He urged clubs to back under-fire SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster as he fights for his job.
But there is a growing fear that cinch could now walk away from the five-year deal.
And now Gers Managing Director Stewart Robertson has hit back in a letter penned to clubs.
Crucially he claims Rangers made it clear to the SPFL there was an issue BEFORE the deal was signed.
Robertson has written: “We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.
“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.  
“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.  
“We cannot breach an existing contract.  This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.
“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:
Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7?  If not, why not? Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent? Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7? It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game.  Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources?  Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director? “I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson
Managing Director.”
 
(article copied from the scum)

Our defending was the real issue tonight.

Poor day at the office all round mate.  But, if we keep switched on and don’t make a number of poor decisions defensively we steal that game 1-0. The Silver lining is that I doubt we perform anywhere near as badly in the second leg.

The SFA/SPFL are hardly renowned for their sound decision making or being smooth business operators; so if the club are pushing back on a contractual basis then I’d be inclined to believe that they were in a strong position to do so. 

The SFA/SPFL are hardly renowned for their sound decision making or being smooth business operators; so if the club are pushing back on a contractual basis then I’d be inclined to believe that they were in a strong position to do so. 

Seemed like Brighton selling White + them desperate to sell Eduoard = Brighton bidding for Edouard. Papers at their best. There was a tweet rubbishing there even being an enquiry made let alone a bid.
If Villa sell Grealish they'll be next linked with a bid.

Get out of Parkhead tonight.

I had it on HesGoal and it was the HeartsTV stream - they were going mental at full time 🤣

TO THE GREAT TARRIER REEF!
 

Shark attack incoming. Fucking hilarious. What a defence 

Not even a good goal. 

There’s some serious over reaction to a token gesture going on here.  I’ll remember never to boo anyone again…
As I said before.  I wouldn’t boo it but I still don’t disagree with it.

There’s some serious over reaction to a token gesture going on here.  I’ll remember never to boo anyone again…
As I said before.  I wouldn’t boo it but I still don’t disagree with it.

I wouldn’t boo it.  But I reserve the right to disagree with it.  That is a democracy after all.

Quite.  Booing is now a act of racism apparently..

I wouldn’t boo it.  But I reserve the right to disagree with it.  That is a democracy after all.

Quite.  Booing is now a act of racism apparently..

I wouldn’t boo it.  But I reserve the right to disagree with it.  That is a democracy after all.