Another battle with SPFL

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,991]

6 hours ago, We Will Follow Rangers said:

Indeed, I'm taking the clubs agreement to abide by local arbitration as the club being pretty confidant about its position, a wee bit of fighting only the battles you know you can win, its also pretty clear its part of a wider agenda to cleanse the SFA and SPFL.

The SPFL as it stands are not fit for purpose as it cannot seem to discharge it's basic duties competently.

[mclovin9091 1,405]

Cinch may not need to be massively advertised at the grounds anyway.

I only saw one sign about 6ft by 2ft for them at Ross county on Sunday.

 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Seems to me that Parks victory in court yesterday has scuppered the arbitration nonsense as a judge has now ruled. SFA/SPFL have failed to follow their own rules. 

[mclovin9091 1,405]

Imagine the SPFL not changing the rules to suit themselves, I'm shocked.

 

I suppose they will just contest it (providing they can) and make the necessary amendments during that time.

[The Dude 20,026]

17 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Seems to me that Parks victory in court yesterday has scuppered the arbitration nonsense as a judge has now ruled. SFA/SPFL have failed to follow their own rules. 

All it means is Parks of Hamilton can be involved in arbitration. 

[Robmc1 4,741]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

All it means is Parks of Hamilton can be involved in arbitration. 

Which should have been a given in this arbitration process and ridiculous it had to be granted via legal action. You really have to wonder about the actual drivers in the SPFL/ SFA decision making, refreshing to see them being taken to task (in full public view) on something that should never have been allowed to develop…

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Robmc1 said:

Which should have been a given in this arbitration process and ridiculous it had to be granted via legal action. You really have to wonder about the actual drivers in the SPFL/ SFA decision making, refreshing to see them being taken to task (in full public view) on something that should never have been allowed to develop…

Its little more than a procedural thing yesterday though. Parks now being involved in the arbitration doesn't really change anything in terms of the actual dispute. 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Its little more than a procedural thing yesterday though. Parks now being involved in the arbitration doesn't really change anything in terms of the actual dispute. 

It does in so far as Parks is an independent company and not bound by any arbitration decision. Parks can still take the matter to court. 

[Smile 26,622]

The media not taking this well that park has been found to be correct and the SPFL/SFA are once again trying to make up rules as they go along, even discounting their own rules that are in place for this very scenario.

[The Dude 20,026]

8 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

It does in so far as Parks is an independent company and not bound by any arbitration decision. Parks can still take the matter to court. 

They would be bound by any arbitration decision though. Thats the entire purpose of the arbitration. 

[esquire8 43,651]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They would be bound by any arbitration decision though. Thats the entire purpose of the arbitration. 

With Parks being involved now, does that mean the SPFL will bring along cinch? Surely the club and Parks have arbitrators against one SPFL arbitrator with a mediator chosen between them doesn't make it even?

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Just now, The Dude said:

They would be bound by any arbitration decision though. Thats the entire purpose of the arbitration. 

That is wrong. The only parties that are bound are Rangers plus the sfa/spfl. Parks are not. Parks get a voice at arbitration (their own lawyers) and that's it. If they disagree with the arbitration result they can still start legal action. Rangers cannot.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, GersInCanada said:

That is wrong. The only parties that are bound are Rangers plus the sfa/spfl. Parks are not. Parks get a voice at arbitration (their own lawyers) and that's it. If they disagree with the arbitration result they can still start legal action. Rangers cannot.

All parties involved in the arbitration are bound by the outcome of it. If any of them disagree with it the next step is CAS. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

With Parks being involved now, does that mean the SPFL will bring along cinch? Surely the club and Parks have arbitrators against one SPFL arbitrator with a mediator chosen between them doesn't make it even?

They could but not sure they would. 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

26 minutes ago, The Dude said:

All parties involved in the arbitration are bound by the outcome of it. If any of them disagree with it the next step is CAS. 

Again quite wrong. Parks cannot go to CAS. That's absurd. For them it is a business matter and the courts are their only route.

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Again quite wrong. Parks cannot go to CAS. That's absurd. For them it is a business matter and the courts are their only route.

Its not a 'business' matter. It is a dispute of the SPFLs rulebook. That's why the SFA are arbitrators. 

[graeme_4 35,248]

12 hours ago, ScottBF2 said:

“Daft hero” anyone threatening Rangers fans deserves called out for it. It’s pathetic behaviour, grow up.

Should ban his bus. 

[BoydsFavouriteDonut 230]

48 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Its not a 'business' matter. It is a dispute of the SPFLs rulebook. That's why the SFA are arbitrators. 

Yeh, but they don’t get to arbitrate viz a viz Parks on Parks rights under its contract with Rangers. Let’s say Parks has a contract that clearly says Rangers can’t advertise a rival business. If Rangers breach that then Parks remedy is against Rangers. The arbitration will have no bearing on that.
I assume Parks want to be at the arbitration to have a seat at the table and explain their view on their rights under the existing contract. 
If Rangers are effectively forced to breach their contract with Parks due to the arbitration decision (seems extremely unlikely if the contract is clear) the Parks might have a court remedy against the SPL. Again, don’t see how the  arbitration has any bearing on that. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, BoydsFavouriteDonut said:

Yeh, but they don’t get to arbitrate viz a viz Parks on Parks rights under its contract with Rangers. Let’s say Parks has a contract that clearly says Rangers can’t advertise a rival business. If Rangers breach that then Parks remedy is against Rangers. The arbitration will have no bearing on that.
I assume Parks want to be at the arbitration to have a seat at the table and explain their view on their rights under the existing contract. 
If Rangers are effectively forced to breach their contract with Parks due to the arbitration decision (seems extremely unlikely if the contract is clear) the Parks might have a court remedy against the SPL. Again, don’t see how the  arbitration has any bearing on that. 

Thats a whole different thing though. The arbitration is only to determine whether Rangers are entitled to invoke the relevant article of the SPFL rules re: league sponsors. 

If Rangers are found in the wrong on that and are obliged to carry cinch branding etc, any issue between Parks and Rangers would be a separate dispute. 

[Hadron Collider 31,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Thats a whole different thing though. The arbitration is only to determine whether Rangers are entitled to invoke the relevant article of the SPFL rules re: league sponsors. 

If Rangers are found in the wrong on that and are obliged to carry cinch branding etc, any issue between Parks and Rangers would be a separate dispute. 

Why would there be an issue between Parks and Rangers? 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Hadron Collider said:

Why would there be an issue between Parks and Rangers? 

That was the suggestion of the previous poster (if Rangers were forced to 'breach' their contract with Parks)

[BoydsFavouriteDonut 230]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Thats a whole different thing though. The arbitration is only to determine whether Rangers are entitled to invoke the relevant article of the SPFL rules re: league sponsors. 

If Rangers are found in the wrong on that and are obliged to carry cinch branding etc, any issue between Parks and Rangers would be a separate dispute. 

Agreed - the arbitration is very narrow in scope. I was responding to the suggestion that all parties to the arbitration are bound by it - as regards Parks and any claims it may have, that’s just wrong.

[Hadron Collider 31,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

That was the suggestion of the previous poster (if Rangers were forced to 'breach' their contract with Parks)

👍

[Smile 26,622]

"The executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor.

"Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL's member clubs."

On the result of the hearing, a Park's spokesperson said: "We can confirm that Park's of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

NO GO Rangers chief Park wins court decision to stop SFA proceeding with arbitration case

"For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.

"This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park's of Hamilton being involved.

"We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.

[bluenoz 31,285]

Bitter cunts don't like to lose, so what do they do.... announce Kevin Clancy as Sunday's ref. How'd you like those apples? 😫