Rangers held negotiations to rename ground ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium’ before dispute over SPFL sponsors (The Sun)

Couple of things I’m hoping here.
Firstly, for all we know our “talks” with cinch may have been about naming rights next season, or maybe even before the May 21 contract with Park.
Secondly the SPFL are actually competitors to us when it comes to securing contracts for sponsorship. So, we would never provide them with the full details of the contract. We could only ever provide them with a heavily redacted document to protect ourselves.
If we didn’t do that we’d be seriously jeopardising our ability to secure a contract with a company the SPFL we’re considering also using. I also don’t trust the SPFL not to disclose such contract details to another club or two.
 
Govan_Guy said:
Nonsense.

If cinch offered us £25 million a year to rebrand Ibrox we might agree with Parks to waive their exclusivity, but not for the pittance form the league sponsorship deal.
Click to expand...

There's no way that we'd successfully argue that.

We were in talks with Cinch about stadium naming rights. How much were Parks paying us? More or less than the SPFL sponsorship money that we'd be getting as a member club? How damaging would having Cinch SPFL branding be to our commercial interests if we were willing to pursue a deal with a rival to Parks over the stadium naming rights?

If we were trying to do our own deal with Cinch then it massively undermines our argument that the SPFL Cinch deal stops us from pursuing our own commercial contracts. It really suggests that we've manufactured a grievance just to pick a fight with the SPFL.
 
iaatpies said:
There's no way that we'd successfully argue that.

We were in talks with Cinch about stadium naming rights. How much were Parks paying us? More or less than the SPFL sponsorship money that we'd be getting as a member club? How damaging would having Cinch SPFL branding be to our commercial interests if we were willing to pursue a deal with a rival to Parks over the stadium naming rights?

If we were trying to do our own deal with Cinch then it massively undermines our argument that the SPFL Cinch deal stops us from pursuing our own commercial contracts. It really suggests that we've manufactured a grievance just to pick a fight with the SPFL.
Click to expand...
That bit in bold is what I've felt from the start of this. That's not a criticism by the way. However, right from the off its seemed a strange case to 'go to war' on.
 
iaatpies said:
If we were trying to do our own deal with Cinch then it massively undermines our argument that the SPFL Cinch deal stops us from pursuing our own commercial contracts. It really suggests that we've manufactured a grievance just to pick a fight with the SPFL.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it does.

A seperate deal between Rangers and cinch would have been negotiated and structured in a way that protected existing contracts. Maybe that wasn't possible and is why we/they walked away.

A deal imposed on us by the SPFL that treads over existing contracts is not the same thing at all.

We aren't avoiding Cinch just because, we're doing it as it impinges on existing deals. If we negotiated with Cinch directly we could obviously avoid that happening.
 
iaatpies said:
We can't claim that the Cinch league sponsorship deal undermines our other commercial deals if we're then looking to sign a deal with the same company. The argument that Parks may have agreed a mutual termination of any agreements they had with the club if the Cinch naming rights deal offered more money doesnt really hold any sway. We were willing to sell our stadium naming rights to Cinch. We were negotiating that at the same time as the SPFL were doing their league deal. Our argument against displaying the league/cinch branding really would be massively weakened if we were essentially in discussions about the prospect of playing our home games at The Cinch Ibrox Stadium.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, especially if we were negotiating with them at the same time as you say. We spoke to Cinch, we reviewed their offer or proposal, we decided not to pursue it as it was either in conflict or detrimental to our current deals or perhaps not as good as other offers we had. The issue here isn't whether we would or would not work with Cinch, the issue is we told the league we were not happy with the deal, just as their rules allow us to do, and the league went ahead anyway. The lawyers and the media will try and spin it as its us being spiteful or selfish but we should just stick to the SPLs own rules that from what i've heard we complied with.
 
ScotiaPapac said:
Even if that’s true, what relevance does it have to this case?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Makes a good headline and clickbait but ultimately doesn't pass the "so what?" test. Companies are allowed to discuss opportunities with each other. I can't see judge putting much weight on it. Looks good in the papers though, for spfl proponents.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
That bit in bold is what I've felt from the start of this. That's not a criticism by the way. However, right from the off its seemed a strange case to 'go to war' on.
Click to expand...

We've got a terrible record when we pick fights. The cases against Fat Mike weren't exactly a success. Picking fights with the media hasn't done much to improve the quality or fairness of coverage. We've barely laid a glove on Doncaster, Shifty and the SPFL. We've got a terrible track record when it comes to fighting our corner.
 
DavyMcK said:
Not necessarily, especially if we were negotiating with them at the same time as you say. We spoke to Cinch, we reviewed their offer or proposal, we decided not to pursue it as it was either detrimental to our current deals or not as good as other offers we had. The issue here isn't whether we would or would not work with Cinch, the issue is we told the league we were not happy with the deal, just as their rules allow us to do, and the league went ahead anyway. The lawyers and the media will try and spin it as its us being spiteful or selfish but we should just stick to the SPLs own rules that from what i've heard we complied with.
Click to expand...

We were still investigating a possible deal with them. Didnt matter that we also had a deal with Parks. We were willing to deal with Cinch if the money was right.

Really is no reason why we can't display the Cinch/SPFL logo on our sleeve or their branding at press conferences.
 
If cinch were willing to offer x and buy out Parks agreement with Rangers then I see no issie why we would t speak to them. If cinch have then baulked at the cost and then thought they would circumvent us and sponsor whole league for a pittance then I can see why we not be happy. Seems as though cinch are at it
 
iaatpies said:
There's no way that we'd successfully argue that.

We were in talks with Cinch about stadium naming rights. How much were Parks paying us? More or less than the SPFL sponsorship money that we'd be getting as a member club? How damaging would having Cinch SPFL branding be to our commercial interests if we were willing to pursue a deal with a rival to Parks over the stadium naming rights?

If we were trying to do our own deal with Cinch then it massively undermines our argument that the SPFL Cinch deal stops us from pursuing our own commercial contracts. It really suggests that we've manufactured a grievance just to pick a fight with the SPFL.
Click to expand...

With the naming rights we would have been benefiting from it though and it must have been worth it to lose parks. Are we expected to accept any crap that cinch throws our way now just because we were going to rename the stadium. They are two seperate issues. One had a massive windfall the other didnt.
 
teddy_bears said:
With the naming rights we would have been benefiting from it though and it must have been worth it to lose parks. Are we expected to accept any crap that cinch throws our way now just because we were going to rename the stadium. They are two seperate issues. One had a massive windfall the other didnt.
Click to expand...

How much is the Parks deal worth - more or less than our cut of the SPFL deal?
 
TerryMunro said:
The conflict is between SPFL and Rangers so why is SFA using Scottish football money to fight against a legal judgement?
Click to expand...
The case today was because Parks successfully took the SFA to Court demanding the right to be represented, as an 'interested party', at the SFA's Adjudication Tribunal. Todays ruling lets the SFA Appeal against that decision.
 
CoopBlue said:
Bisgrove will do anything to get a deal done in order to add to his CV.
Click to expand...

You're an odd poster. You always start with testing the water with a bit of a go at the club... a slight criticism if you will. No one ever acknowledges it so you go in again with something else but this time a bit more on the side of drama... again no one replies. You then jump in again for bites and try it a 3rd time, and is this thread's instance a personal criticism of someone at the club.

Very strange.
 
iaatpies said:
We were still investigating a possible deal with them. Didnt matter that we also had a deal with Parks. We were willing to deal with Cinch if the money was right.
.
Click to expand...

I feel this is really missing the point.

Cinch and Parks aren't inherently incompatible. The claim being made isn't that we can't deal with Cinch ever. The reason we aren't wanting the SPFL contract imposed on us is that it steps on existing contracts.

Whether we could have come to a compatible deal with Cinch directly doesn't factor into that.
 
Allegedly we were in negotiations with cicnh til 7th June they signed deal with SPFL on 11th June. They clearly didnt want to pay top dollar and tried to get Ibrox plastered with their shite via the back door.
 
It's an interesting development alright and one which can be easily spun by our haters to fit their Rangers = liars narrative.

But surely the devil is in the detail. For example, who approached who re the stadium naming? If it was cinch approached us, we briefly considered and then told them to ram it, then nothing to answer for there. Even if we approached cinch, they might just have been one of many companies we were canvassing to get an idea of figures. And as has been mentioned previously, presumably its at our commercial discretion to then consider whether it would be worth going with them if the price was right and cancel the contract with Parks in the interest of commercial gain. Not sure the court would have any problem with that as there's a big difference to me in making your own commercial decisions vs having cinch foisted upon you for a relative pittance by the shysters of the spfl.

I just hope that the unredacted contract is watertight though if we're forced to lodge it with the courts because if its not then I would guess we're in trouble...
 
iaatpies said:
How much is the Parks deal worth - more or less than our cut of the SPFL deal?
Click to expand...
Who knows its commercial sensitive. Doesnt matter. If contract from SPFL is accepted and we breach Parks co tract we lose whatever the value of that contract is and possibly open to damages, unlikely but the threat is there
 
The Crimson King said:
I feel this is really missing the point.

Cinch and Parks aren't inherently incompatible. The claim being made isn't that we can't deal with Cinch ever. The reason we aren't wanting the SPFL contract imposed on us is that it steps on existing contracts.

Whether we could have come to a compatible deal with Cinch directly doesn't factor into that.
Click to expand...

Which means that we had a deal with Parks whilst still looking to deal with Cinch. Kind of undermines our argument that our deal with Parks would be undermined if we had to display Cinch SPFL branding.

We'll find out when the judge reaches a decision. If, and I remain of the view that it's a very big if, the story about our negotiations with Cinch are true then I'd expect the judge to find against us. We'll see what decision the judge makes.
 
iaatpies said:
We've got a terrible record when we pick fights. The cases against Fat Mike weren't exactly a success. Picking fights with the media hasn't done much to improve the quality or fairness of coverage. We've barely laid a glove on Doncaster, Shifty and the SPFL. We've got a terrible track record when it comes to fighting our corner.
Click to expand...

Added to the reality that we have no chance of a fair hearing in any Scottish Court. I have no faith whatsoever in the Scottish judicial system. Expecting otherwise is mere wishful thinking. I'm only surprised that the notorious Lord Carloway hasn't made an appearance.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The case today was because Parks successfully took the SFA to Court demanding the right to be represented, as an 'interested party', at the SFA's Adjudication Tribunal. Todays ruling lets the SFA Appeal against that decision.
Click to expand...
So why is SFA not allowing a court judgement with Parks to be represented. The SFA are meant to be leading the arbitration, controlling who and who is not represented is participating in the scam.
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
Who knows its commercial sensitive. Doesnt matter. If contract from SPFL is accepted and we breach Parks co tract we lose whatever the value of that contract is and possibly open to damages, unlikely but the threat is there
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter?

If Parks were paying us £100k a season and the SPFL Cinch deal would have got us £150k a season then it matters.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure there are many more knowledgeable than I.

If the contract for naming rights of the stadium was discussed in May then its not relevant to the case if the SPFL sponsorship deal didn't begin until June?

Did Cinch inform Rangers in May that they were in discussions to sponsor the SPFL in a 5 year deal?

If so would they not be breaking data protection and contractual obligations?
 
negotiations could well have been going on any topic and renaming came up in the conversation. It doesn’t mean for a second that it was sensibly considered.
 
If, and a big if, the story is true then it doesn't look great. We submitted a heavily redacted contract from May 21 between Rangers and Park's of Hamilton. Seems a bit convenient, no?

When was the cinch deal with the SPFL floated? Our recent track record with the SPFL fùckwits hasn't been great.
 
iaatpies said:
We were still investigating a possible deal with them. Didnt matter that we also had a deal with Parks. We were willing to deal with Cinch if the money was right.

Really is no reason why we can't display the Cinch/SPFL logo on our sleeve or their branding at press conferences.
Click to expand...
Yep, and obviously the money or deal wasn't right so we didn't do the deal and moved on. The SPL were then told that their deal with Cinch was also unsuitable before they signed it. The issue here isn't the money, it's the conflict of interest and our right not to accept the SPL deal, irrespective of the spin.
 
RoyalBlue1 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure there are many more knowledgeable than I.

If the contract for naming rights of the stadium was discussed in May then its not relevant to the case if the SPFL sponsorship deal didn't begin until June?

Did Cinch inform Rangers in May that they were in discussions to sponsor the SPFL in a 5 year deal?

If so would they not be breaking data protection and contractual obligations?
Click to expand...

It is relevant. We've alleged that we informed the SPFL of a conflict of interest with our own sponsorship deals prior to them signing their Cinch deal.

Their deal conflicts with our interests and therefore breaches SPFL rules but we're negotiating with the same company?
 
iaatpies said:
We were still investigating a possible deal with them. Didnt matter that we also had a deal with Parks. We were willing to deal with Cinch if the money was right.

Really is no reason why we can't display the Cinch/SPFL logo on our sleeve or their branding at press conferences.
Click to expand...
That may well be the case. If there was sufficient financial incentive Douglas Park might have agreed to tear up his contract, but it would appear either the money wasn't right or there was some other impediment. What is certain is that the money from the SPFL deal certainly isn't right. I'm sure we discuss sponsorship / investment opportunities with countless companies and come to an agreement with only a small percentage of them. I don't really see how this undermines our case.
 
People need to stop believing the media spin.
It doesnt matter if we were previously in talks with cinch.
All that matters is whether the SPFL deal conflicts any current deal and breaches the SPFLs own rules.

Everything else is written to denigrate the club.
Stop believing the media.
 
nublu2u said:
If, and a big if, the story is true then it doesn't look great. We submitted a heavily redacted contract from May 21 between Rangers and Park's of Hamilton. Seems a bit convenient, no?

When was the cinch deal with the SPFL floated? Our recent track record with the SPFL fùckwits hasn't been great.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter if it's convenient or not. If it's watertight it's still a reason to object to the cinch deal.
 
iaatpies said:
We've got a terrible record when we pick fights. The cases against Fat Mike weren't exactly a success. Picking fights with the media hasn't done much to improve the quality or fairness of coverage. We've barely laid a glove on Doncaster, Shifty and the SPFL. We've got a terrible track record when it comes to fighting our corner.
Click to expand...

One of the issues is that people look for definitive wins & losses when it seldom works that way. It’s accumulative.

What is Ashley’s involvement with Rangers now? I’d say his absence is a success.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
One of the issues is that people look for definitive wins & losses when it seldom works that way. It’s accumulative.

What is Ashley’s involvement with Rangers now? I’d say his absence is a success.
Click to expand...

It wasn't achieved through repeated court action.
 
iaatpies said:
It is relevant. We've alleged that we informed the SPFL of a conflict of interest with our own sponsorship deals prior to them signing their Cinch deal.

Their deal conflicts with our interests and therefore breaches SPFL rules but we're negotiating with the same company?
Click to expand...
I agree and understand what you're saying. The original conflict was regarding Douglas Park car sales advertising in conflict with Cinch car sales.

Until this point there has been no mention of stadium naming rights. Given that Rangers didn't sign a contract in May to rename Ibrox, the only existing conflict would be with the car sales issue?
 
iaatpies said:
We can't claim that the Cinch league sponsorship deal undermines our other commercial deals if we're then looking to sign a deal with the same company. The argument that Parks may have agreed a mutual termination of any agreements they had with the club if the Cinch naming rights deal offered more money doesnt really hold any sway. We were willing to sell our stadium naming rights to Cinch. We were negotiating that at the same time as the SPFL were doing their league deal. Our argument against displaying the league/cinch branding really would be massively weakened if we were essentially in discussions about the prospect of playing our home games at The Cinch Ibrox Stadium.
Click to expand...
Selling the naming rights to a stadium I think is slightly different to league sponsorship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top