Keef Jackass aka SPFL Spokesmen reporting crisis talks over Cinch deal

The SPL was the breakaway, we got put down to the 3rd div and the SPL werent getting a TV deal so Scottish Football league (SFL) merged with SPL to create the SPFL.

Exactly what happened. The SFL folded far too soon, they had the SPL in a corner but some of the Championship clubs were easily convinced with the offer of a play off and they caved easily.
 
Clubs arent happy even though they signed it off? What a bizarre world Scottish football is
I suspect they have signed it off and now the penny has dropped on what they signed up to and that there is perhaps something positive and financially more rewarding now open to Rangers. The fact that some are starting to now mumble and grumble says we must be on a decent footing.
 
This can be filed alongside 'celtic's tour of Japan back in 2008' as bullshit ( same journalist (sic) too?) if it is such a drama why can't an emergency meeting be held today there is this thing called the Internet and Zoom, managed to get it to work to give their puppet masters a title to end the season, with a quarter of the fixtures to be played whilst England played to a finish after already notifying UEFA that the Clubs had agreed to chuck it before THE vote, but if these Chairmen want to be shafted at every turn and listen to SPFL propaganda about it being big bad Rangers fault without actually checking the details and like with stopping the League they also only told Clubs what they wanted them to know again NOT the full facts.
Yup, never forget, pass the knowledge onto the next generation of bears.
 
I suspect they have signed it off and now the penny has dropped on what they signed up to and that there is perhaps something positive and financially more rewarding now open to Rangers. The fact that some are starting to now mumble and grumble says we must be on a decent footing.
Agreed: The Enemy of my Enemy is my Fiend!


(couldn't go the whole hog with the "r" :p)
 
Pretty hilarious that other teams are now kicking off about the new cinch deal as it means that we might not need to give up future sleeve sponsorships. Wonder when the penny will drop with Keith that his masters got their arses handed to them on this debacle



Anxious top-flight clubs fear the simmering feud between Rangers and the SPFL could be about to go ‘nuclear’ as they brace themselves for urgent crisis talks.

Record Sport understands fears are growing that the long running dispute is set to escalate with the potential for huge financial ramifications - despite last week’s announcement that the Ibrox club can continue to pocket cash from a sponsorship deal with cinch while refusing to promote the car dealer’s branding. Rangers immediately called for a meeting of all 12 Premiershipclubs and a showdown with league chief executive Neil Doncaster.

No date has yet been agreed for those emergency talks but while rival clubs are hoping that some sort of peace deal can be brokered between the two parties as quickly as possible, they fear the relationship has deteriorated further over the course of the last few days. In fact, they have all been copied in on an ongoing email exchange between Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson and SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan in which the parameters of the discussion are still being thrashed out.

Rangers are demanding the SPFL disclose what they describe as the ‘full facts’ behind the bitter cinch dispute which has been raging since the start of last season, when the five year sponsorship package was first secured.

The Ibrox club have successfully argued that agreeing to take part in promoting the online firm will breach the terms of an already existing partnership with chairman Douglas Park’s own car company Park’s of Hamilton.

Their refusal to take any part in promoting the cinch brand led to fears that the entire £8m deal could collapse.

But the agreement will stay in place for the next four years after Doncaster negotiated a ‘revised’ deal which does not require any future Rangers participation.

That new agreement was signed off by the other clubs last week but it has now sparked concern Rangers may also be exempt from promoting any other commercial deals secured by SPFL bosses.

Record Sport understands - with the value of those tie-ins potentially at risk - both Hearts and Aberdeen have asked for urgent clarification on the matter.

— what a shambles of a website
Rangers shouldn’t be exempt from displaying any future sponsor ship that the spfl gets, unless the law17 is involved.
law17 is there for ALL teams.
if the members vote for a sponsor and it doesn’t cross over with existing agreements, ALL clubs should wear it.
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?
That certainly appears to be the situation as far as I can understand it.
 
sounds like the other clubs are maybe finally waking up to this shower enough to do something about it - though the catalyst appears to be that Rangers are getting stuff for free.
It would be better if they excluded us from all their deals and we excluded them from all ours. The truth is they need us yet they borrow money from the Scottish govt and still close stands to paying customers. Utter farce.
 
I wonder if a young, fresh faced Jackson (or at least less crater facey) started out with grand ambition to become a sportswriter par excellence. Honest, unbias, enthusiastic and capable of asking the hard-hitting questions when needed to try.and report accurately on the quagmire that is Scottish football.

And if he did, at what point did he decide to jack all that in and become the laziest pen for hire imaginable, incapable of anything remotely resembling proper journalism and simply churning out party lines for whoever his puppet master is at any given point?

In this case, if he could somehow drop his ongoing anti Rangers / Pro spfl agenda for just one article, it would be remarkably easy and obvious to figure out what's happened and where the unequivocal blame for the situation lies.

The whole cinch deal, from inception to date, has been an absolute omnishambles by those entrusted to run the governance side of our game.

Paltry fee to start with; outsourced middle men pocketing hefty wads for bringing what is effectively scraps to the table; signing the deal despite a valid objection from a member club; lengthy and expensive legal battles that followed due to their refusal to ackowlege this objection; subsequent defeat, climb down and compromise which somehow makes the deal even worse and exposes clubs to higher risk of reduced income from other sponsors...the list goes on. All presided over by Keith's friends and paymasters at the good old SPFL. Meanwhile, Rangers - the perennial bad guys according to the Scottish media playbook - have done nothing wrong in the slightest and for once, they're actually struggling to pin this one on us.

In the unlikeky event that other clubs grow a pair and we get the root and branch change in Scottish football governsnce that we so badly need, i hope Jackson gets absolutely hee haw from the new set up and is completely outcast along with his pals Doncaster and MacLennan. That would be a lovely and fitting end to his career.
"...lengthy and expensive legal battles that followed due to their refusal to ackowlege this objection..."

Previously Doncaster told clubs that the SPFL don't have a "float" i.e. no reserves in the bank to provide financial assistance to clubs so the SPFL had to ask clubs to end the season 2019/20 early.

So where did the SPFL get the money for the expensive legal fees ? The other clubs should be asking that question as it is very likely that it would be taking money out of the game which could be going to the clubs and really that is all they care about.

Second question would be "Exactly what is Doncaster doing to earn his £388,000 pa salary ? "
 
Last edited:
You have to admire cinch here.
Not having Rangers on the branding and the consequent public discourse from the controversy arising in regard to the issue, has led to far more public awareness of their brand than had Rangers been inside the fold.
The more dust that is kicked up the better it is for them
Indeed when their brand logo is masked over in the sponsor board, more people will notice and ask about it than the other way around.
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?
I also read that future sponsorships by the spfl can be opted out by Rangers allowing us to get our own deals in for that too.
 
I also read that future sponsorships by the spfl can be opted out by Rangers allowing us to get our own deals in for that too.
No, cinch can basically block Rangers from being part of any future sponsorship deals that the SPFL negotiate.

The SPFL have said that they have received written confirmation that cinch wouldn't go down this route though.
 
Which then begs the question why is the ability for cinch to do that in the contract in the first place?
It seems to have been renegotiated to include that detail, but yes, if they have no intention of ever using it, why insist it is put in there.

I guess it is if the SPFL ever did a deal with a company that Rangers already dealt with but had no objection to that particular conflict, cinch could call them out on it and force Rangers to be excluded from the deal.
 
It seems to have been renegotiated to include that detail, but yes, if they have no intention of ever using it, why insist it is put in there.

I guess it is if the SPFL ever did a deal with a company that Rangers already dealt with but had no objection to that particular conflict, cinch could call them out on it and force Rangers to be excluded from the deal.
That would then, surely, render Doncaster's touted 'written confirmation' that cinch won't go down that route as meaningless. They've made a complete arse of this, again.
 
No, cinch can basically block Rangers from being part of any future sponsorship deals that the SPFL negotiate.

The SPFL have said that they have received written confirmation that cinch wouldn't go down this route though.
So because of SPFL’s incompetence we have now got a conflict with a company that can pick and choose what sponsorships deals we participate in.
That’s another reason for further action required to be taking on our part. We are meant to be a collective, we now have written contracts separating us from the others.
 
Its an old article so the amounts are wrong - but it gives the percentages per League position as well and they will not have changed. For the team bottom of SPFL2 on those figures then their 0.18% slice would work out at £2,700. For the team at the top of the top division on 13.4% it would be £201,000.

Thanks for that. £144k for us for last season then
 
"...lengthy and expensive legal battles that followed due to their refusal to ackowlege this objection..."

Previously Doncaster told clubs that the SPFL don't have a "float" i.e. no reserves in the bank to provide financial assistance to clubs so the SPFL had to ask clubs to end the season 2019/20 early.

So where did the SPFL get the money for the expensive legal fees ? The other clubs should be asking that question as it is very likely that it would be taking money out of the game which could be going to the clubs and really that is all they care about.

Second question would be "Exactly what is Doncaster doing to earn his £388,000 pa salary ? "
Did they not once back down on a red card decision against Celtic because they couldn't afford the costs of threatened legal action to fight it? :))

It would almost be comical if it didn't directly impact something I cared so much about.
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?

Why shouldn't we get a share? The SPL benefits from our performances in Europe, our co-efficient improvements and from us playing teams with cinch advertising, with the greater likelihood of TV and other media coverage.
 
Seems clear that we want Doncaster & co to be forced to tell the "crisis" meeting that, despite being warned by us that we didn't need to participate in the sponsorship, and so wouldn't, they ignored our position & went ahead with the cinch deal anyway.

You would think that some clubs might then ask "Why did you do this Neil, costing £xxx in legal fees & lost sponsorship? Why Neil Why...?
 
Why shouldn't we get a share? The SPL benefits from our performances in Europe, our co-efficient improvements and from us playing teams with cinch advertising, with the greater likelihood of TV and other media coverage.
Indeed, I am all for it.
However, I doubt this one-eyed appraisal of the situation will carry much weight over at The Jimmy Savile Arena.
 
"...lengthy and expensive legal battles that followed due to their refusal to ackowlege this objection..."

Previously Doncaster told clubs that the SPFL don't have a "float" i.e. no reserves in the bank to provide financial assistance to clubs so the SPFL had to ask clubs to end the season 2019/20 early.

So where did the SPFL get the money for the expensive legal fees ? The other clubs should be asking that question as it is very likely that it would be taking money out of the game which could be going to the clubs and really that is all they care about.

Second question would be "Exactly what is Doncaster doing to earn his £388,000 pa salary ? "
The legal fees will come out of the Cinch deal, leaving all clubs with less money.
 
Cutting to the chase I know but what would it take to oust these useless knuckleheads? Is it a majority of teams from all the leagues or is there a tipping point where enough of the bigger teams siding with Rangers would get the job done?
It seems that Aberdeen and Hearts are already skeptical of their governance, if say hibs, dun utd (I know I know) ross co, motherwell and killie got on board would that be enough or does the tail wag the dog?
 
No, cinch can basically block Rangers from being part of any future sponsorship deals that the SPFL negotiate.

The SPFL have said that they have received written confirmation that cinch wouldn't go down this route though.
Why would that matter though If Parks we’re still involved at that stage in the future? I’m confused by all this.
 
Why would that matter though If Parks we’re still involved at that stage in the future? I’m confused by all this.
Let’s say the league had another sponsorship with Ladbrokes for instance. There could potentially be a conflict of interest given our 32Red sponsorship, but we ignored it and everything went on as normal.

Potentially though, cinch could look at it and say “there should be a conflict of interest there, why are Rangers accepting that one and not ours?” and then block Rangers from being part of that sponsorship deal.
 
Let’s say the league had another sponsorship with Ladbrokes for instance. There could potentially be a conflict of interest given our 32Red sponsorship, but we ignored it and everything went on as normal.

Potentially though, cinch could look at it and say “there should be a conflict of interest there, why are Rangers accepting that one and not ours?” and then block Rangers from being part of that sponsorship deal.
Would SPFL now have to inform all future sponsors that they might have to not include Rangers due to Cinch having a veto on who Rangers are allowed to advertise or not?
This is mind boggling stuff, donkey doncaster is useless.
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?
If we can indeed sell that space wouldn’t it be wonderful if a deal suitable to Parks (however unlikely) could be done with Cazoo?
 
Did they not once back down on a red card decision against Celtic because they couldn't afford the costs of threatened legal action to fight it? :))

It would almost be comical if it didn't directly impact something I cared so much about.
Was that not the 2 Neil Lennon bans that overlapped when he was the manager?

If it was I believe the rules were so badly written that they either confused the use of the words “concurrent” and “consecutive“ or failed to make a distinction between them. Either way it sounded like Celtic had basically exploited another amateurish SFA / SPL fuckup
 
Was that not the 2 Neil Lennon bans that overlapped when he was the manager?

If it was I believe the rules were so badly written that they either confused the use of the words “concurrent” and “consecutive“ or failed to make a distinction between them. Either way it sounded like Celtic had basically exploited another amateurish SFA / SPL fuckup
Is that what it was?

Remember when he got a half game ban which he served during the game he was sent off, too?
 
Let me get this right.
All of the advertising space that cinch would normally get at Ibrox and on our shirts if we remained in the deal, is now free for us to sell elsewhere, but we still get the income from the cinch deal as if we had remained part of it?
In short, we could conceivably get double bubble?

Surely not?
And if so, does anyone believe that The Filth will be happy about this?
Cinch sponsors the whole league.
we are exempt from advertising but still a member.
 
Klaxon's never had an exclusive in his puff, unless you count being spoon-fed propaganda and rhetoric from corrupt cabals. True giants of sports journalism like Ken Gallacher, Alex Cameron, John Fairgrieve, Jim Blair must be turning in their graves.
 
Let’s say the league had another sponsorship with Ladbrokes for instance. There could potentially be a conflict of interest given our 32Red sponsorship, but we ignored it and everything went on as normal.

Potentially though, cinch could look at it and say “there should be a conflict of interest there, why are Rangers accepting that one and not ours?” and then block Rangers from being part of that sponsorship deal.
Would that not be down to the individual parties though and how wood Cinch know the details of any contracts? And why would they be able to block a deal for a league they weren’t sponsoring at the time? Am I missing something here?
 
Klaxon's never had an exclusive in his puff, unless you count being spoon-fed propaganda and rhetoric from corrupt cabals. True giants of sports journalism like Ken Gallacher, Alex Cameron, John Fairgrieve, Jim Blair must be turning in their graves.
Alex Cameron MEH! This clown for years could only pen that all of our issues/tribulations could be put down to the fact that we did not sign roman catholics from crowd trouble at Birmingham friendly v Aston Villa, to not winning the League in the early 80's pre-Souness etc, every other Monday morning column of Candid Cameron trotted out that tired lazy old line and on the signing of MoJo he wrote and I quote ' This is a thoughtless and provocative gesture by Rangers in signing Maurice Johnstone ' no congratulations or about time too article just thoughtless and provocative, and when we won at the Piggery for the first time since Alex Millers glory goal in April '89 he wrote ' This was a fine win by Rangers spoiled only by a few of their fans singing sectarian songs ....and of course the home fans were singing The Lord's my (Tony) Shephard , yet again that playbook was continued by Gollum at Easter Rd and led to the current BBC dispute yet he never slates the IRAoke at the Piggery.
 
They'll continue to back the shambolic leadership that's taken the body from crisis to crisis, and continues to be a laughing stock. Terrified to be seen to be backing Rangers, because they're scared of one club and their fans simply won't let them. %^*& them, I hope we absolutely %^*& them over they way they did it to us
 
Would that not be down to the individual parties though and how wood Cinch know the details of any contracts? And why would they be able to block a deal for a league they weren’t sponsoring at the time? Am I missing something here?
I just gave Ladbrokes and 32Red as an example of Rangers advertising 2 competing companies at the same time.

My point is that Rangers said they can’t give advertising space to cinch due to a conflict of interest with a current commercial partner. We haven’t had a problem advertising a league sponsor when having a competing club sponsor in the past, something that cinch will no doubt be aware of.

cinch won’t know the details of any Rangers commercial deal, but according to the papers they now have the power to veto Rangers’ inclusion in any future SPFL sponsor. The only way I can see that happening is is it is 1) a competitor to cinch or 2) if we ignore a blatant conflict of interest with a current sponsor
 
Back
Top