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

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...
Seems like we are missing a trick by not employing your expertise. Get yourself along to Ibrox and present yourself.
 
Ped78 said:
Because it would have been our own deal,yes?
Click to expand...
My understanding of the dispute is that we don’t agree to the Cinch sponsorship for a conflict of interests with Parks Motor Group. Which is perfectly reasonable.

If we have been looking at dealing with Cinch on our own though it then brings into question our position over a conflict.

That’s how it looks.
 
davhow said:
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
Click to expand...
The court demanded the full contract was handed over and not the redacted version the SPFL won that part. The reason it does not have to be handed over just now is because they have also won the right to appeal the original interdict decision we previosly won.
 
JW1988 said:
My understanding of the dispute is that we don’t agree to the Cinch sponsorship for a conflict of interests with Parks Motor Group. Which is perfectly reasonable.

If we have been looking at dealing with Cinch on our own though it then brings into question our position over a conflict.

That’s how it looks.
Click to expand...
Most important word in your reply is 'if'
 
Why did the agreement with Parks only get signed in May 2021? I think that’s relevant and I can see why it might even seem suspicious given that around that time we would be speaking with Cinch and with the SPFL about their Cinch deal? Time will tell
 
bluesntwos said:
Why did the agreement with Parks only get signed in May 2021? I think that’s relevant and I can see why it might even seem suspicious given that around that time we would be speaking with Cinch and with the SPFL about their Cinch deal? Time will tell
Click to expand...
When did our negotiations with cinch start and when did SPFLs?
 
Snakehips said:
Really? You are taking The Sun and the SPFL as gospel? There are plenty of suggestions on the thread as to why this is total nonsense.

Or you could wait for the real facts to be revealed before making judgement.
Click to expand...
Not the Sun no.

The SPFL would be in very big trouble if they lied in the High court today though. I cant see any organisation taking that chance in a high court, can you?

You are probably right though, lets hear all the finer details. Hopefully they paint a much better picture for us.
 
Last edited:
JW1988 said:
My understanding of the dispute is that we don’t agree to the Cinch sponsorship for a conflict of interests with Parks Motor Group. Which is perfectly reasonable.

If we have been looking at dealing with Cinch on our own though it then brings into question our position over a conflict.

That’s how it looks.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter how 'it looks'.

We could say that we tried to negotiate a deal with them but couldn't come to an agreement due to the conflict of interest'

The same conflict of interest that is causing the issue with the SPFL.
It could actually help our case.
 
Now and forever said:
The court demanded the full contract was handed over and not the redacted version the SPFL won that part. The reason it does not have to be handed over just now is because they have also won the right to appeal the original interdict decision we previosly won.
Click to expand...
That's not what the article says. No mention of the court demanding the contract. The SPFLs lawyer demanded it but didn't get it, at this point anyway.
 
IF true that we were negotiating with Cinch up until the 7th June.
& The SPFL deal with Cinch was announced June 11th.
There's a 4 day window to create a 'conflict of interest' contract (with Parks) and notify the SPFL of that conflict (which we have claimed).

I really hope we haven't scored an own goal here.
 
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...
Whatever they were going to pay would be a difference to the two sets of circumstances. Rangers being paid an amount of money directly by cinch for having some naming rights is an entirely different transaction to cinch paying the SFPL and Rangers getting a share.
If the discussions between Rangers and cinch ended poorly then residual bad feeling might have resulted in a “%^*& them” response from Rangers when it came to cinch’s name being plastered around the place as a result of the SFPL sponsorship - understandable but not great professionalism.

This news certainly blunts the point of a conflict of interest but I don’t think it knocks it out as an argument completely.

My general concern is that our Board/legal folk don’t seem to be able to think things through to the worst conclusion and how to mitigate that before working their way back… which is kind of what most business people do as a standard approach. This covers dealing with SD, politicians and Police Scotland never mind cinch.

Aside from all that… with the amount of effort being put into mis-information about Rangers by our friends in the mainstream press at the moment, any breaking news needs a long hard taking of breath before reaction.
 
Last edited:
Even if true, then this would have been a sponsorship deal with cinch that would have been with the agreement and cooperation of any existing sponsors. It may even have completely replaced an existing sponsorship deal, therefore there would be no conflict on interest here. The alledged conflict of interest is a sponsorship deal that is essentially being imposed on Rangers to the detriment of an existing sponsor. [edited just to add... Though given our past, I do hope we haven't fecked up another legal battle...]
 
rangersforever73 said:
Even if true, then this would have been a sponsorship deal with cinch that would have been with the agreement and cooperation of any existing sponsors. It may even have completely replaced an existing sponsorship deal, therefore there would be no conflict on interest here. The alledged conflict of interest is a sponsorship deal that is essentially being imposed on Rangers to the detriment of an existing sponsor.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I’m not sure why others aren’t getting this.
 
Renaming the stadium for a chunk of money for a sponsorship period is practically the definition of money for old rope, I would take it in a heartbeat (I know this isn’t a popular view).
In terms of this case, it is irrelevant. We can enter into discussions with anyone at any point, and if we had a conflicting deal in place, we could choose to try to renegotiate that deal. We are under no imperative to renegotiate an existing deal to suit an SPFL contract.
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:
That's not what the article says. No mention of the court demanding the contract. The SPFLs lawyer demanded it but didn't get it, at this point anyway.
Click to expand...
There is more than one article.

The judge stated that because he had granted them the right to appeal the original decision then he did not propose to make an order for their request for the full contract.
 
Shottsbear said:
IF true that we were negotiating with Cinch up until the 7th June.
& The SPFL deal with Cinch was announced June 11th.
There's a 4 day window to create a 'conflict of interest' contract (with Parks) and notify the SPFL of that conflict (which we have claimed).

I really hope we haven't scored an own goal here.
Click to expand...
Parks contract is dated May or are you suggesting that our Chairman has fabricated the contract?
 
When it comes to court cases just about everything over the last decade has been a complete embarrassment for the club.

BTW why is it 'cinch' and not 'Cinch'?
 
We may have, or may not have been in negotiations with Cinch, that's seperate from the SPFL sponsorship deal. Looks to me like their QC was throwing mud around hoping some of it would stick. In my unprofessional and totally simplistic view, it's irelevent to the problem at hand whether we display the Cinch sign on our kit, or not
 
dh1963 said:
I despise the Sun as much as anyone, but they aren't the story here. A top QC spoke in a court and they've reported what he said.

Sure, The Sun will spin it to look as bad for us as possible, but to be honest this one doesn't need much spin.

We give the court a massively censored document on our agreement with Parks that allows the QC to cast doubt on it being genuine. We are accused by that same QC of being perfectly happy to take the cinch money if it suits us, suggesting no conflict really exists with Parks.

I really hope our lawyer can counter those, as both look potentially damaging to our case.
Click to expand...
Looks like our legal team are on the ball again NOT who is the amature team we hire to do our legal stuff have they ever win anything for us , absolutely gash from whoever it is so amateurish.
 
Some folk are really struggling to get this

We told the SPFL we can't give Cinch sleeve sponsors and stadium sponsors because of a deal with Park.

If Park himself wanted to negotiate a deal with Cinch then that's his choice as the 3rd party sponsor, the two potential deals are not exclusive and it doesn't mean that we cannot seek our own sponsorship.

The difference is Park making the decision vs the SPFL making the decision on our behalf (despite being told we cannot comply)
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Mac said:
I’d say it means we were negotiating a deal with very company we’re claiming a conflict of interest with.
Surely not?
Click to expand...
I am more concerned about the heavily redacted document.
Hopefully it stands up to scrutiny after it is made more legible.
 
Shottsbear said:
IF true that we were negotiating with Cinch up until the 7th June.
& The SPFL deal with Cinch was announced June 11th.
There's a 4 day window to create a 'conflict of interest' contract (with Parks) and notify the SPFL of that conflict (which we have claimed).

I really hope we haven't scored an own goal here.
Click to expand...

Are you making an allegation that our club had acted fraudulently in making a contract which was signed between June 7-11 and backdated to make it appear to have been signed in May?
 
Orange said:
Everybody and their granny knows renaming Ibrox won’t go down well. It would take a very special deal for it to be accepted. Perhaps a sponsored expansion of some sorts that would boost capacity and see the new stands be called the Red 32 Unibet Uber Eats Bitci Biowave Sandy Jardine Black Rooster 3rd Tier.
Click to expand...
Or preferably none of those ! :)
 
Last edited:
Lots of red herrings there.

The fact is that the SPFL referred their dispute with Rangers to the SFA for arbitration.

Parks of Hamilton applied for, and were granted, an interim interdict against that arbitration process on the grounds that in accordance with the SFA's own rules Parks were entitled to be represented at that arbitration.

This recent hearing was about the SFA requesting permission to appeal that interdict - nothing more nothing less. There was no requirement at this hearing to interrogate all of the details as is confirmed in Lord Braids comments in granting the appeal.

The appeal will be heard and, again, there is little merit in interrogating all the commercial deals in detail at that point. The decision of the appeal will, in all probability, be that the arbitration can proceed and it will determine whether or not Parks of Hamilton will be part of that arbitration process. So the appeal will review the SPFL/SFA rules re disputes and arbitration and the Rangers/Parks contract to determine if they should be represented.

The finer details of the commercial agreements will then be reviewed as part of the arbitration process. Bringing all this up at this stage re the stadium and wanting an unredacted copy of commercially sensitive info at this stage is unnecessary and little more than mud slinging from the SFA.

They are on the backfoot here and appear to be attempting to muddy the waters - they are, however, very good at that and some (including our own) will buy into it and automatically assume we, or more particularly our board, have got it wrong.

Me? I wouldn't trust that lot an inch and while I always have some reservations where our board are concerned in matters such as this I believe, given their (SPFL/SFA) actions, there is enough to suggest that we could well be right in this one - here's hoping.
 
Here's my take:

The club may have been negotiating with Cinch, in full knowledge that it may have negative implications on other sponsorship. They evaluate what they would gain from the Cinch deal, compared with to what would be lost on other deals, and if it worked commercially, then they proceed with Cinch and cancel the other deal (or renegotiate terms) and accept the consequences.

The SPFL have tried to impose this deal upon us, and we have highlighted that it breaches the terms of a current commercial relationship, I presume to our detriment overall. We rightly contested this under the SPFL rules.

Our other dealings with Cinch are not relevant, and are merely thrown in to muddy the waters. We wouldn't have gone ahead with a Cinch deal that was overall detrimental to us.

Whether the SPFL agreement is overall better for us is probably not an issue either, the issue at point is that it breaches one of our current agreements, and so shouldn't have been allowed.

The rule exists I presume to stop the SPFL from forcing contracts upon members that breach their own commercial contracts, and that is what we are contesting.
 
CoopBlue said:
IdolizedInfantileChafer-max-1mb.gif
Click to expand...
After his monthlies I hope .
 
Once upon a time a good portion of this forum were in favour of 'The Sports Direct Arena'...

Shudder.
 
steve1873 said:
Are you making an allegation that our club had acted fraudulently in making a contract which was signed between June 7-11 and backdated to make it appear to have been signed in May?
Click to expand...

Never made any allegation.
I'm picking the facts from the article.
IF we knew in May there would be a conflict of interest with Cinch, why negotiate with them for Stadium naming rights up until the 7th June?

Very bizarre
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
Parks contract is dated May or are you suggesting that our Chairman has fabricated the contract?
Click to expand...

Not suggesting any wrongdoing.
I'm picking the facts from the article.
IF we knew in May there would be a conflict of interest with Cinch, why negotiate with them for Stadium naming rights up until the 7th June?

Very bizarre
 
Jimmy Mac said:
I’d say it means we were negotiating a deal with very company we’re claiming a conflict of interest with.
Surely not?
Click to expand...
Which if true, makes us look like utter fannies in all honesty.
If we are currently arguing we cannot have cinch branding because of parks of Hamilton contract, it will be argued that there was no conflict if we were happy to rename the stadium.
So , if true, it looks like the stadium deal fell through and we took the huff.

I hope that is not how this played out
 
Given that we're indulging in some wild speculation here, instead of pointing fingers at the club based on a report in the Sun (I mean ffs), could it not be the case that the club looked at a deal with Cinch, decided Cinch were taking the piss in some way, Cinch then tried to get into the club through the backdoor of a deal with the SPFL and the club has invoked the SPFL's own articles to mug them both off?

In any case an unsigned contract is more use as toilet paper in a dispute like this. The clubs internal commercial discussions are utterly irrelevant to the main thrust of this case. Good faith, bad faith, again all irrelevant. It's purely "what do the rules say and were those rules adhered to?"
 
Jeema said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not that I know but the risk here is that the Park’s contract only started in May 2021 and is being used as a device to exclude cinch.
It may well be that we were in talks with cinch and then the SPFL muscled in.
So we decided to create a ‘deal’ with Park’s so that we could exclude cinch who had clearly double crossed us!!
 
Shottsbear said:
Not suggesting any wrongdoing.
I'm picking the facts from the article.
IF we knew in May there would be a conflict of interest with Cinch, why negotiate with them for Stadium naming rights up until the 7th June?

Very bizarre
Click to expand...
Were we in negotiations? Its all in the wording and detail.

Hello this is cinch we want to sponsor the stadium?
How much?
£xm
Let us discuss it at board level

That could be the extent of the negotiations. It may be more than that. No-one.on here knows
 
lanarkshire_bear said:
Given that we're indulging in some wild speculation here, instead of pointing fingers at the club based on a report in the Sun (I mean ffs), could it not be the case that the club looked at a deal with Cinch, decided Cinch were taking the piss in some way, Cinch then tried to get into the club through the backdoor of a deal with the SPFL and the club has invoked the SPFL's own articles to mug them both off?

In any case an unsigned contract is more use as toilet paper in a dispute like this. The clubs internal commercial discussions are utterly irrelevant to the main thrust of this case. Good faith, bad faith, again all irrelevant. It's purely "what do the rules say and were those rules adhered to?"
Click to expand...
Not that I give any particular truck to The Sun but in this case they are reporting court proceedings and that gives the story some legitimacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top