blaudrup 5,198 Posted August 3, 2021 Share Posted August 3, 2021 The sponsors will be delighted with the free headlines, coverage and social media. They could barely plan it better. The more they can make a soap opera of it, the better. Even the making up at the end can be more free coverage. Monkey Butler 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted August 3, 2021 Share Posted August 3, 2021 41 minutes ago, blaudrup said: The sponsors will be delighted with the free headlines, coverage and social media. They could barely plan it better. The more they can make a soap opera of it, the better. Even the making up at the end can be more free coverage. Which sponsor is it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaudrup 5,198 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 10 hours ago, The Dude said: Which sponsor is it? Cinch. They'll love all the headlines with their name in them and being talked about. This has greatly increased the value for them. It's a sponsorship PR win. That's not to say they might also enjoy getting it for free or a discount too. Bad Robot 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SuperTav 970 Posted August 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2021 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) AGC123, plymouthranger, DMax399 and 14 others 17 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plymouthranger 3,842 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 9 minutes ago, SuperTav said: 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) Makes sense, only worry I have is that Parks don’t actively sponsor us from what I can see? But we must have an agreement in place if we’re referencing the clause… Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GersInCanada 7,775 Posted August 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2021 Robertson goes up in my estimation for the second time in weeks. Sound letter. stevemac, DMax399, Land Rover and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 I would be happier if the club came out and said which of our sponsorship deals this affected. We have to be 100% correct in this fight as the SPFL make the rules up as they go along and will already be thinking of sanctions they can hit us with. TamCoopz 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottBF2 3,540 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Bluekev said: I would be happier if the club came out and said which of our sponsorship deals this affected. We have to be 100% correct in this fight as the SPFL make the rules up as they go along and will already be thinking of sanctions they can hit us with. The club notified the SPFL and if that’s true and we received no further correspondence from them about it then that’s their problem. Hopefully our email RE this hit their spam folder BlueKnight87 and Bluekev 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, Bluekev said: I would be happier if the club came out and said which of our sponsorship deals this affected. We have to be 100% correct in this fight as the SPFL make the rules up as they go along and will already be thinking of sanctions they can hit us with. It is clearly the deal we have with Parks. Bad Robot and Bluekev 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said: It is clearly the deal we have with Parks. What deal, I've looked everywhere and can't see them listed as one of our official partners or sponsors. TamCoopz 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post the cry was no 3,012 Posted August 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2021 20 minutes ago, SuperTav said: 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) 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 JohnHardie, baxters11, WilliamMunny and 7 others 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Bluekev said: What deal, I've looked everywhere and can't see them listed as one of our official partners or sponsors. Do they need to put it on a list and show us? Dont think that there is any requirement for them to do that. If we have a contract with Park, then that should be enough. Bluekev, plumbGER and frenv 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Butler 23,000 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bluekev said: What deal, I've looked everywhere and can't see them listed as one of our official partners or sponsors. I'm sure we still have a transport provider contract with them. Not sure if this qualifies them as a partner or sponsor though. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13502591.rangers-director-takes-club-coach-contract-bus-firm-sacked/ Bluekev 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, Monkey Butler said: I'm sure we still have a transport provider contract with them. Not sure if this qualifies them as a partner or sponsor though. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13502591.rangers-director-takes-club-coach-contract-bus-firm-sacked/ It's just not listed by the club as an official partner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Butler 23,000 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Bluekev said: It's just not listed by the club as an official partner. Could that be a business decision because they also supply buses for the tarriers? Bluekev 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Do we not already have a sponsor in the position on the shirt that the Cinch logo is expected to be located. Just a thought no really been keeping up with this one other than the pettiness of the SPFL team of the week. LMAO at that one, amazes me so called grown grown men in positions carrying such a high level of responsibility in Scottish football being so childish. Off to email Cinch saying I'll no be using their service due to the ill judged attack on our club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BlueKnight87 17,242 Posted August 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2021 Taken this off twitter showing the rule Robertson referred too. Doncaster and McLellan trying to put the pressure on us contacting the other clubs. Easier to blame us than admit they fucked up as it's in thier own rule book that we can refuse. If the Cinch deal falls through now and costs clubs money it's their own damn fault for leaving these idiots in charge. Bears r us, JCDBigBear, AlbertzLoyalRSC and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 25 minutes ago, Monkey Butler said: Could that be a business decision because they also supply buses for the tarriers? Possibly mate, I'm just hoping we're correct because after the last few years I've got very little faith in our legal department. Bad Robot and Monkey Butler 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowley Birkin 8,334 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 18 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said: Taken this off twitter showing the rule Robertson referred too. Doncaster and McLellan trying to put the pressure on us contacting the other clubs. Easier to blame us than admit they fucked up as it's in thier own rule book that we can refuse. If the Cinch deal falls through now and costs clubs money it's their own damn fault for leaving these idiots in charge. yup the bigot in charge even admitted this in his rant to the press and other clubs BlueKnight87 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Looking into it I reckon it could infringe on our Tomket Tires sponsorship because they're listed as our official sleeve sponsor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianb1547 3,767 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Bluekev said: What deal, I've looked everywhere and can't see them listed as one of our official partners or sponsors. Genuine question here..... does every organisation/company we have a contract with need to be a partner or sponsor? Surely we have an abundance of contracts that are with others who are not partners/sponsors. Bluekev and Rowley Birkin 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer 11 2,533 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Obviously we’re not corporate lawyers , it’s not apparent parks has a sponsorship with us at the moment however as a director it could be tied in to a contract that he has first refusal at automotive sponsorship with a no compete clause built in. Which is likely what would fuck the cinch deal Bluekev 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluekev 43,202 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 minute ago, ianb1547 said: Genuine question here..... does every organisation/company we have a contract with need to be a partner or sponsor? Surely we have an abundance of contracts that are with others who are not partners/sponsors. I'm genuinely not sure mate. I was just wondering if anyone knows the company who we have a contract is. I wasn't trying to be a dick I'm just hoping this isn't another legal case that will cost us millions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkytfp1 18,479 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 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. alibali59, BlueKnight87 and DMax399 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowley Birkin 8,334 Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, Bluekev said: I'm genuinely not sure mate. I was just wondering if anyone knows the company who we have a contract is. I wasn't trying to be a dick I'm just hoping this isn't another legal case that will cost us millions. how the fuck will it cost us millions theyve already admitted we are correct they just want the rest of scottish football and the public to hate us more this is nothing but a deflection by the spfl BlueKnight87 and Colin Traive 2 Quote Link to post 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.