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

TBH until we know actual details I wouldn't waste energy being annoyed at the thought of Ibrox being renamed.

Does it say who initiated talks? Or did Cinch just approach us about it?

I could tweet Carole Vorderman asking her if she's free on Friday. I mean realistically you could then say that Carole Vorderman and I are in talks over having a date? The reality is however is that I have absolutely no chance.
 
I think a really important point being missed here is that the rules allow for clubs to "sit out" a sponsorship deal if by breaching current agreements it would cause them economic harm

Made up numbers but - Park contract is worth £1m a year, cinch league deal worth to RFC £500k a year = breaching Park deal would have negative impact

Park contract is worth £1m a year, cinch stadium rights deal worth £5m to RFC = breaching Park deal would have positive impact
 
RoyalBlue1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The Sun are reporting that we were still talking to Cinch in June - days before the SPFL league deal was announced.
 
ScotiaPapac said:
Even if that’s true, what relevance does it have to this case?
Click to expand...
I guess the opposition lawyer is trying to suggest that we would have been happy for cinch to have their name used at Ibrox if the deal had suited us regardless of any deal we have with the Parks Group.
 
The interdict was about the sfa rules, they failed to Include Parks. The rest of this, imo, is just noise.
Yes the negotiations with cinch may well be an issue for the arbitration panel, but the only thing the court has to concern itself with just now, is whether the sfa, by excluding parks, are in breach of their own rules on arbitration.
A contract clearly exists, regardless of how much it was redacted. Thus it stands to reason, Parks should be, as should cinch for that matter, be included in the arbitration process.
 
This doesn't look too clever. The Parks contract dated May 2021 yet the board were in discussions with cinch till 7th June 21 which could hit the conflict of interest on the head.
The SPFL brief stating "“We do have considerable doubt about the way in which this document has been produced" is inflammatory and basically calling the board liars.
This will come down to dates:when exactly did the SPFL tell the club they were proposing a deal with cinch and when was the Park contract first mooted?
I hope our board and lawyers are tight here.
 
Please tell me this isnt true,that would have been an absolute f.uckin brassneck!!

im calling bullshit on this
 
Isn’t this about 2 separate arguments?

Rangers allege that the SPFL failed to comply with its own rules in ignoring an objection raised by us before the deal was signed, they ignored SR and signed anyway.
The SPFL have to answer for that regardless of whether our claims of conflict of interest are sound or not. its the whole basis of our argument and refusal to recognise and fulfill this contract. This alone should be enough to see senior people removed.

The 2nd part is a legal argument around existing commercial contracts and conflict of interest.
That can be examined and argued, the point is, that should have been done before the SPFL signed and tried to force Rangers into a contract we didn’t want to enter Into.
 
I fail to see the relevance of us talking to them about stadium sponsorship. These are two separate issues.
Anyway league shite sponsorship deal whomever signed it should be sacked.
 
Commander Bjorklund said:
TBH until we know actual details I wouldn't waste energy being annoyed at the thought of Ibrox being renamed.

Does it say who initiated talks? Or did Cinch just approach us about it?

I could tweet Carole Vorderman asking her if she's free on Friday. I mean realistically you could then say that Carole Vorderman and I are in talks over having a date? The reality is however is that I have absolutely no chance.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

As soon as one party suggests something and gets an instant knockback, they've "been in talks".

Did these "talks" come before or after Rangers informed the SFPL (before the deal was signed) that we wouldn't be able to fulfill it ?
If they came after it, they were obviously meant as a bribe / sweetener.
 
I've always said stadium sponsorship of an "old stadium" is money for nothing. We play at at Ibrox, Celtic at Parkhead, Aberdeen at Pittodrie. If someone wants to pay money to have it called something else in the media, bite their hand off.

Different at new stadiums e.g. Arsenal at The Emirates, Bolton at the Reekbok - names stick.
 
iaatpies said:
Rangers - we're refusing to display the Cinch logo on our shirts and in our stadium because it's a poor deal that impacts on our own commercial deals.

Also Rangers - Cinch, fancy the naming rights to Ibrox?

And you don't see that being relevant to our dispute with the SPFL?
Click to expand...
Cinch approached Rangers about naming rights. They had a meeting and then kicked it into touch.

Cinch's QC is now bringing it up as though Rangers were happy to do business with Cinch all along (although no business was done). Which is supposed to undermine Rangers' argument.
 
rst99 said:
Cinch's QC is now bringing it up as though Rangers were happy to do business with Cinch all along (although no business was done). Which is supposed to undermine Rangers' argument.
Click to expand...

I think this is another thing people are missing - the deal didn't happen.

Now it could be for 100 reasons, but surely it's an argument in Rangers favour that we have already shown that coming to a deal with Cinch under the current circumstances is hard, if not impossible.

If we couldn't do it on our own terms, then the SPFL storming in and riding roughshod over everything certainly was going to be a problem.
 
The Clunge Taster said:
The relevance is we have no conflict of interest with Cinch and therefore have no reason to not display their brand, if Parks motor group were willing to name the stadium 'cinch Ibrox' with no issues then, why is there an issue now?

I sincerely hope we've not just stood on our own fucking dicks AGAIN!
Click to expand...
They weren’t willing to because it never happened. Maybe that’s the reason it never happened. We’re not going to tell potential sponsors to bolt without seeing what they can offer. The fact we spoke to them means nothing.
 
Unless I’m missing something, the lengths the SFA are going to here to appeal the original verdict suggests to me they have already decided in their mates at the SPFL’s favour. Otherwise

The rest is noise, and whilst embarrassing if true is taking away from what looks an extremely cosy relationship between those two governing bodies.

To me it just highlights once again what we are up against, and Lawwell and his cohorts have this sewn up.
 
Load of bullshit Cinch Ibrox stadium never in a million years there’s top companies and I mean top companies that would bite our hands of for renaming rights , even the thought of that clown with the big white teeth sends shivers through me
 
It really doesn’t bother me if we were looking to get a sponsor for Ibrox. Most likely just bisgrove testing the waters to see how much he could get. Quite a few big clubs do this nowadays, at some point it will probably happen with us.
 
rst99 said:
Cinch approached Rangers about naming rights. They had a meeting and then kicked it into touch.

Cinch's QC is now bringing it up as though Rangers were happy to do business with Cinch all along (although no business was done). Which is supposed to undermine Rangers' argument.
Click to expand...
Exactly, could be as much as a phonecall occurring discussing a verbal offer.
 
This is media spin and highlights the importance of celtc installing a media lackey at the head of the SFA.
 
Lovenkrands said:
Unless I’m missing something, the lengths the SFA are going to here to appeal the original verdict suggests to me they have already decided in their mates at the SPFL’s favour. Otherwise

The rest is noise, and whilst embarrassing if true is taking away from what looks an extremely cosy relationship between those two governing bodies.

To me it just highlights once again what we are up against, and Lawwell and his cohorts have this sewn up.
Click to expand...
Clearly they don't want Park's represented at arbitration as they are appealing the decision to interdict that.

That suggests they have something to hide at arbitration, which is good for us I would surmise.
 
Commander Bjorklund said:
TBH until we know actual details I wouldn't waste energy being annoyed at the thought of Ibrox being renamed.

Does it say who initiated talks? Or did Cinch just approach us about it?

I could tweet Carole Vorderman asking her if she's free on Friday. I mean realistically you could then say that Carole Vorderman and I are in talks over having a date? The reality is however is that I have absolutely no chance.
Click to expand...
Dont knock yourself brother I've heard she's a bit of a cow
 
RoboProd said:
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
Click to expand...
Redaction could be numbers.
Dont think it was the court, but the sfa lawyers.
 
"THE PARENT company of Rangers entered negotiations to rename Ibrox with a firm that secured an SPFL sponsorship deal, a court has heard.


Advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC said bosses at Rangers Football Club Ltd spoke to chiefs at online car retailer cinch about renaming the club’s stadium."

Is it just me, or is Rangers International Football Club the parent company and Rangers Football Club Ltd the company that is in the process of being liquidated?
 
iaatpies said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not if it meant we lost the £100k for Park and breached a contract that would have incurred penalties.
No-one knows the value of the Parks deal. I could quite easily respond as nd say if Parks were paying £155k and SPFL was £150k why would we accpet it. You are muddying the waters with guess work
 
Aww Skew said:
Bisgrove would become public enemy number 1 if Ibrox was renamed that :D
Click to expand...

Hopefully it stops some of the OTT replies on here about how ‘wonderful’ a job Bisgrove is doing for bringing in commercial sponsorship. He’s simply for a doing a job that hasn’t been done at the club for 15 years.

The quality of commercial partners brought into the club to date is very much in the Tier 3 / Tier 2 supplier bracket and nothing to write home about so far. We need much better long term in my view.
 
When all this nonsense started and there was talk of us going to court, you're thinking we better not f&ck this up.

Not again you're thinking, surely our god awful legal team who are forever getting spanked about the courthouse have got this one right.

Then you read this and you think, at least we are consistent.
 
If true days after Rangers knocked back the cinch offer, SPFL then thought it appropriate to sign a deal with a company that Rangers couldn't agree terms with. And they wonder why they are f-ing useless and why there's a conflict.
 
RoboProd said:
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
Click to expand...
They have given the redacted contract to the SPFL's lawyer, not the court and the court at the moment has no desire to see the full contract and has rejected the SPFL's petition to have the court demand rangers hand it over
 
RoboProd said:
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
Click to expand...

Because there are people within the organisation who hate Rangers and it would be leaked within hours, undermining any future commercial contracts and their potential value.
 
onelegwonder said:
That's a hard read. What does it mean in layman's terms?

Ps. Not the stadium stuff all the articles and redactions. Are they getting to see the full documents?
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that the SPFL position is along the lines of we didn’t actually have a competing commercial agreement in place with Parks until such time as the Cinch deal was in the pipeline, and they will be trying to dig up as much detail on the ‘redacted’ deal to establish which came first.

The naming rights stuff is a bit of a sideshow imo, although again they are probably bringing it up as a means of suggesting we were happy to speak to Cinch about some kind of business prior to the SPFL deal being in place.
 
Coisty09 said:
It means that we were doing our own deal with cinch according to the claim by the SPFL lawyers. That info probably came from cinch,
It looks like we were after an exclusive deal to get a big chunk of money.
Sounds like someone at cinch has been very underhand.
The numpties at the SPFL found out (possibly through the London-based agents) and then desperately offered the cheap deal that they did. (We were probably getting the whole £8m and SPFL Peter would not have been happy)
The interesting part is that apparently we were still negotiating directly until 7June this year.
Irritatingly, it looks like the deal we signed with Park’s is dated May 21. We have to hope that the Park’s one was a renewal otherwise we could end up looking very silly.
It is still probably true that we wrote to donkey caster quite early to say that we could not participate in the cinch deal as we knew that had been put together to screw our deal.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most plausible part of it all. We were doing our own deal and the SPFL and the old bigot that heads it probably decided to go in all guns blazing to %^*& our deal up.

The whole thing looks and sounds complicated but I still wouldn’t trust anything the Sun says. I suspect a wee bit of skulduggery here.
 
Mr. T. said:
I guess the opposition lawyer is trying to suggest that we would have been happy for cinch to have their name used at Ibrox if the deal had suited us regardless of any deal we have with the Parks Group.
Click to expand...

And? If the price was right, why would that be an issue?

The conflict is about undermining current deals - presumably Rangers would receive considerably more for renaming the stadium than the paltry amount they would receive from league sponsor, so it in no way undermines or creates conflict with any existing agreement.
 
Para Handy said:
Hopefully it stops some of the OTT replies on here about how ‘wonderful’ a job Bisgrove is doing for bringing in commercial sponsorship. He’s simply for a doing a job that hasn’t been done at the club for 15 years.

The quality of commercial partners brought into the club to date is very much in the Tier 3 / Tier 2 supplier bracket and nothing to write home about so far. We need much better long term in my view.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm sure Scottish football is a well known attraction for Tier 1 sponsors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top