Another battle with SPFL

[The Dude 20,027]

9 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Surely as a members organisation, if one of your members says ‘hang on there’s an issue here’ you put the breaks on until it’s resolved?

Do the rules state that it’s time bound, or that there’s a requirement to share any existing commercial contracts? 

To a point, yeah. If you ask member for evidence of said issue and they don't provide anything to back their claim up, I don't think it's that unreasonable to push on.

I believe there is an expectation for clubs to provide evidence of any contracts that would put them into conflict with the SPFL's commercial arrangements - otherwise, it would be as simple as someone just saying 'we're not taking part' without any legitimate reason to do so.

[ScottBF2 3,540]

I understand our endgame is to oust Doncaster et al, but I just don't see how this is the best way of going about it.

I hadn't seen the statement from Robertson though, RE Contractual obligations - I'd been under the impression we'd been suggesting it conflicted with an already signed sponsorship agreement, but contractual obligations could be as vague as anything. We may have signed an exclusivity with Parks to only promote their products and name in an official capacity, and in displaying cinch logos could be seen to be breaching that agreement. If that's the case, I don't see where the SPFL have a leg to stand on.

[Monkey Butler 23,188]

What is the point of arbitration? It's clear that Rangers have no intention of  backing down on this, providing they have a tight legal case obviously. 

[Paisley Blue Loyal 11,808]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It will yeah. SPFL aren't simply going to drop it and Rangers aren't going to suddenly start wearing cinch patches etc so the only way to resolve it is arbitration.

Love to be a fly on the wall in that room 😂

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, Monkey Butler said:

What is the point of arbitration? It's clear that Rangers have no intention of  backing down on this, so I really don't see the point. 

Its a legally binding resolution to the dispute between Rangers and the SPFL.

[graeme_4 37,619]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It doesn't tick the boxes Rangers claims it ticks.

Surely the conflict is they are competing businesses? What other boxes does it need to tick? 

 

[The Dude 20,027]

2 minutes ago, ScottBF2 said:

I understand our endgame is to oust Doncaster et al, but I just don't see how this is the best way of going about it.

I hadn't seen the statement from Robertson though, RE Contractual obligations - I'd been under the impression we'd been suggesting it conflicted with an already signed sponsorship agreement, but contractual obligations could be as vague as anything. We may have signed an exclusivity with Parks to only promote their products and name in an official capacity, and in displaying cinch logos could be seen to be breaching that agreement. If that's the case, I don't see where the SPFL have a leg to stand on.

Ever seen any of this promotion of Parks of Hamilton/Parks Motor Group by Rangers?

[graeme_4 37,619]

Just now, The Dude said:

Ever seen any of this promotion of Parks of Hamilton/Parks Motor Group by Rangers?

Nah, just the bus really. Does it have to be a sponsorship, or can it just be a commercial agreement? 

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

Surely the conflict is they are competing businesses? What other boxes does it need to tick? 

 

Whether there actually is a conflict between them. To the best of my knowledge, Parks only provide our matchday transport. Where is the conflict with an online used car place? Why doesn't celtic's deal with Parks also conflict with cinch?

[Monkey Butler 23,188]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Its a legally binding resolution to the dispute between Rangers and the SPFL.

Yes, I get that we have to go through the motions with this, but it still seems pointless. It's not likely that we're suddenly going to agree to back down. So what will be the likely outcome? 

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

Nah, just the bus really. Does it have to be a sponsorship, or can it just be a commercial agreement? 

Parks said in their statement they were doing this to protect the rights of 'sponsors' so can only take from that it is related to being a sponsor.

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, Monkey Butler said:

Yes, I get that we have to go through the motions in this, but it still seems pointless. It's not likely that we're suddenly going to agree to back down. 

Doesn't matter if we agree to bacl down or not. If we lose at arbitration, we'll have no option but to back down or face sanctions.

[ScottBF2 3,540]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Ever seen any of this promotion of Parks of Hamilton/Parks Motor Group by Rangers?

Promotion can just be using their services exclusively, it doesn't have to be as in your face as some make out.

[The Dude 20,027]

5 minutes ago, ScottBF2 said:

Promotion can just be using their services exclusively, it doesn't have to be as in your face as some make out.

But that then leads to the question of why Parks' deal with us leads to a conflict with Cinch but not their deal with Celtic. They are exclusive matchday transport provider to both clubs. Would seem very odd that Rangers couldn't have the cinch patch etc because it might hurt Parks' business but he's happy for Celtic to wear cinch patches despite them apparently harming his business.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Putting to 1 side the fact that the cinch deal for Scotland is a very poor deal.

I doubt that we would be pursuing this as aggressively as we are if not very confident of the outcome. 

[McEwan's Lager 32,075]

14 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Nah, just the bus really. Does it have to be a sponsorship, or can it just be a commercial agreement? 

 It's whether whatever relationship Park's has with Rangers that there is some form of exclusivity. Normally that would happen through sponsorship but it could happen through an in-kind partnership. For example Park's could provide buses to Rangers free of service and one of the conditions is they don't promote rival companies, of which Cinch would be one. 

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, McEwan's Lager said:

 It's whether whatever relationship Park's has with Rangers that there is some form of exclusivity. Normally that would happen through sponsorship but it could happen through an in-kind partnership. For example Park's could provide buses to Rangers free of service and one of the conditions is they don't promote rival companies, of which Cinch would be one. 

Are an online used car dealer a rival company to a bus firm?

Why aren't they a rival firm when it comes to Parks' deal with Celtic?

[RM Monitor And Standards Officer 112,889]

Just now, The Dude said:

Are an online used car dealer a rival company to a bus firm?

Why aren't they a rival firm when it comes to Parks' deal with Celtic?

Could it be parks provide the cars?

Mind he has car showrooms not just the buses 

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, RFC55 said:

Could it be parks provide the cars?

Mind he has car showrooms not just the buses 

Countless other clubs have those same (public) arrangements with third-party companies to provide cars for players. None of them are feel there's a conflict with cinch. Sure I looked recently and ten of the 12 Premiership clubs all had official transport partners/vehicle providers on their websites.

We also don't publicly promote any of those services on behalf of Parks of Hamilton (car sales, leases etc) and, on the face of it, they don't have any formal partnership with the club beyond providing us buses to games.

[Paisley Blue Loyal 11,808]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

But that then leads to the question of why Parks' deal with us leads to a conflict with Cinch but not their deal with celtic. They are exclusive matchday transport provider to both clubs. Would seem very odd that Rangers couldn't have the cinch patch etc because it might hurt Parks' business but he's happy for celtic to wear cinch patches despite them apparently harming his business.

Might be going down a rabbit hole here but a thought has just occurred to me, Every man and their dog know DP is a Rangers man and most probably puts his hand in his pocket at times to help fund Rangers, Obviously that funding relies on his business being successful so if cinch were to impact his business it could have a knock on effect to Rangers, Doubt if celtic would lose any sleep if they had to change their bus provider.

[McEwan's Lager 32,075]

Just now, The Dude said:

Are an online used car dealer a rival company to a bus firm?

Why aren't they a rival firm when it comes to Parks' deal with Celtic?

Park's Motor Group are used car dealers too.

Park's deal with Celtic could be just a normal arrangement to supply buses for monetary consideration. 

[graeme_4 37,619]

24 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Are an online used car dealer a rival company to a bus firm?

Why aren't they a rival firm when it comes to Parks' deal with celtic?

Comparing apples and oranges here really. 

Parks provide a bus for celtic. 

Park’s relationship with Rangers is far more intertwined, and Parks are more than just buses.

For me, if a member company says ‘stop, we’re not comfortable with this commercially’ that should be it. Fuck knows what the legal standing of it is though. 

[HG5 12,257]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Countless other clubs have those same (public) arrangements with third-party companies to provide cars for players. None of them are feel there's a conflict with cinch. Sure I looked recently and ten of the 12 Premiership clubs all had official transport partners/vehicle providers on their websites.

We also don't publicly promote any of those services on behalf of Parks of Hamilton (car sales, leases etc) and, on the face of it, they don't have any formal partnership with the club beyond providing us buses to games.

Don’t need to promote it publicly - the two are very interlinked.

What do you think when you hear the name?

I think of the motor & coach business, then remember he’s chairman!

And I live nearly 200 miles away.

I’m sure this perception isn’t lost on the guys who brokered the deal.

[The Dude 20,027]

22 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

Park's Motor Group are used car dealers too.

Park's deal with Celtic could be just a normal arrangement to supply buses for monetary consideration. 

That's all their deal with Rangers appears to be too. There's nothing anywehre which suggests otherwise. Parks of Hamilton/Parks Motor Group aren't listed anywhere as a partner, we don't advertise their brand anywhere, there's literally nothing which suggests our contract with Parks is any different to the one they have with Celtic.

[The Dude 20,027]

19 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Comparing apples and oranges here really. 

Parks provide a bus for celtic. 

Park’s relationship with Rangers is far more intertwined, and Parks are more than just buses.

For me, if a member company says ‘stop, we’re not comfortable with this commercially’ that should be it. Fuck knows what the legal standing of it is though. 

Parks' relationship with Rangers personally is far more intertwined with Rangers, absolutely. Parks Motor Group is the 'interested party' in this case so it's about the relationship between the two businesses itself rather than DP's role in either.

DP being chairman is pretty irrelevant in terms of the dispute. It'll come down to whether the contract we have with Parks of Hamilton puts us in conflict with cinch's sponsorship of the SPFL. If all that Parks of Hamilton contract with Rangers covers is them providing buses (as they do with Celtic), there's not any conflict with Parks that doesn't exist elsewhere.