SFA lost appeal judgement today on interim interdict gained by Parks of Hamilton in August

Probably content staying out of it right now, getting the publicity, before cancelling the contract and getting sponsorship £ back off the SPFL

The publicity they’ll get from cancelling the contract will be priceless too
Too true they couldn't have expected so much publicity and now win with or without contract. Notice how Cinxh is always prominent in photos.
 
Its not that complicated guys. The original ruling was that Parks were entitled to be represented. The SFA appealed against that decision and were granted permission to take it to the Court of Session to seek to have it overturned. The Court of Session told them to f*ck off, the original ruling that Parks could be represented stands.
 
Looks like the SPFL & SFA aren't going to pull off their stitch-up, then.

The plan must have been SPFL surprise us with the contract, we say (correctly) that under rule 17 we don't have to follow this, the SPFL tells us to shut up and do as we're told, we (correctly) state that they aren't following the rules, SPFL drags SFA in for the "arbitration" and they simply tell us that we're wrong, we should shut up, we have no right to appeal and do as the SPFL says.

Oops, turns out if you're both corrupt and incompetent then you're prone to being caught out by things like "the law" and "rudimentary due diligence"
 
Nobody seems to be in a rush to get this sorted. I wonder what Cinch makes of Scotland's football governance?
 
I would be amazed if the SPFL press ahead with the arbitration now.
The interesting part of their argument was that Park’s is not a member of the SFA.
My reading of that is that they know they could threaten Rangers with non-compliance sanctions.
They could also force Rangers to participate in proceedings with non-disclosure rules.
But they cannot use either of those tools against Park’s.
In other words, their usual bullying tactics would be completely ineffective.
I think they will not want to continue as they could not risk their dodgy dealings being revealed publicly.
I suspect that McLennan is behind the dodgy deal and will be, in some guise or other, a recipient of some of the £500k ‘commission’.
The guy from cinch allegedly worked for Shifty (McLennan) McGifty, famous for his ‘I cannae stand they bastards’ quote!!
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure that if we (Rangers) lost at arbitration, we have no right of appeal but Parks aren't covered by the same rules and could appeal to courts, hence the need to exclude them.
Parks need to be included, it's so basic it's unbelievable the SFA/SPFL cabal are still trying to get out of it.

If they are not included then you can end up in a situation where the arbitration rules against Rangers and they are ordered to display Cinch logos etc. Parks then goes to the Court of Session and gets an interdict to enforce their contract and stop Rangers displaying logos etc. So you end up with two procedures going on that may come to opposing conclusions. That is precisely why the SFA's own rulebook states that all parties to the dispute are able to participate in the process, that way you have one process with all views represented and then one conslusion.
 
I would be amazed if the SPFL press ahead with the arbitration now.
The interesting part of their argument was that Park’s is not a member of the SFA.
My reading of that is that they know they could threaten Rangers with non-compliance sanctions.
They could also force Rangers to participate in proceedings with non-disclosure rules.
But they cannot use either of those tools against Park’s.
In other words, their usual bullying tactics would be completely ineffective.
I think they will not want to continue as they could not risk their dodgy dealings being revealed publicly.
I suspect that McLennan is behind the dodgy deal and will be, in some guise or other, a recipient of some of the £500k ‘commission’.
The guy from cinch allegedly worked for Shifty (McLennan) McGifty, famous for his ‘I hate those orange bastards’ quote!!
That my thought as well. While we think they have to go by the laws of the land, they don’t. The SFA can do what they want because they just threaten to expel us if we take a governing body to court.
 
The tv deal along with this Cinch deal show how clueless Doncaster etc are. However these are just celtic place men similar to Maxwell at the SFA. Only way we’d get rid of these clowns is if celtic wanted rid as there is clearly no appetite from the rest of the teams in Scotland to get behind Rangers and get rid!
 
All this is a problem manufactured by the spfl. They are costing Rangers money to fight their incompetence and they’re also creating bad PR for the club. It’s all just blatant corruption which helps our rivals. Celtic placement in the spfl/SFA don’t care that it costs their organisation money, because it helps celtic. Hampden needs levelled.
Rangers will get costs paid from this. It's costing the club nothing.
 
Seen it’s getting paid but every penny of everybody’s time won’t and bad press cost companies. It’s all stuff that isn’t costing our rivals.
All our legal costs will be covered, that's every minute billed by lawyers, the only bad press is the sfa, and the spfl. Outside of Scotland nobody knows what is going on.
 
The fact that the SFA even let it get this far is a joke. They put their idea up, we said "this isn't gonna work for us", the SFA rather than trying to resolve the matter and come to an agreement just went full clueless.
you may be confusing the SPFL and the SFA. It was the SPFL that put the idea up and we said it was not going to work for us. owing to us not being able to solve the dispute with the SPFL it has been escalated to the SFA. The SFA in turn do not understand their own rules regarding the process for this process hence this court case
 
All our legal costs will be covered, that's every minute billed by lawyers, the only bad press is the sfa, and the spfl. Outside of Scotland nobody knows what is going on.
Not our directors time and everything else. As I said, it’s all stuff that isn’t costing our rivals. Rangers being in legal battles is bad press. Everybody who looks at what’s going on around Rangers can read what’s going on regardless where they are in the world.
 
To me Gary Borland Q.C.‘s comments may be interpreted as the SFA and SPFL saying
“ look, Rangers is a member Club so we can use the rules of the Association to kick shit out of them and they canny dae anything about it, so gonae no‘ let Parks play, because we canny bully them wi’ the rules”.
I might be wrong in that interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Not our directors time and everything else. As I said, it’s all stuff that isn’t costing our rivals. Rangers being in legal battles is bad press. Everybody who looks at what’s going on around Rangers can read what’s going on regardless where they are in the world.
I live in London nobody has a clue about the case, the media down here report next to f all about Scottish football. It's not damaging us.
 
SPFL’s lawyer is Lord Keen of Elie QC.

That's the former Lord Advocate who made a total arse of the Charles Green prosecution and who was in Sturgeon's pocket during the Salmond enquiry.

Talk about a nest of vipers.
I'm not sure if anyone else has replied but Advocate General advises the UK government and had nothing to do with the Charles Green et al case.

That was the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, who is now (unbelievably) a judge.
 
To me Gary Borland Q.C.‘s comments may be interpreted as the SFA and SPFL saying
“ look, Rangers are a member Club so we can use the rules of the Association to kick shit out of them and they canny dae anything about it, so gonae no‘ let Parks play, because we canny bully them wi’ the rules”.
I might be wrong in that interpretation.

Again.

I’d love to see a truly independent inquiry into how we have been treated in the last 9 / 10 years.

From the 5 way agreement to trivial things like not because no able to re-sign Cousin.

It fućking reeks.
 
I live in London nobody has a clue about the case, the media down here report next to f all about Scottish football. It's not damaging us.
If course a company being in a legal battle is damaging. If an interested party is looking into it for any reason then a legal battle doesn’t look great. It’s a legal battle that our rivals aren’t in. Are you saying this makes absolutely no difference to anything on any level and won’t cost a penny anywhere? It costs our directors time that they could be doing other things, time that our rivals directors aren’t spending on this nonsense. What’s so difficult to understand?
 
SPFL’s lawyer is Lord Keen of Elie QC.

That's the former Lord Advocate who made a total arse of the Charles Green prosecution and who was in Sturgeon's pocket during the Salmond enquiry.

Talk about a nest of vipers.
Keen was Advocate general rather than Lord Advocate

Lord Advocate is chief public prosecutor and advisor to the Scottish Government - it was Frank Mulholland and Lord Wolfe during the Green et al fiasco

Advocate General is the senior Scottish legal advisor to the UK Government

Keen also represented Rangers during the SFA's attempt to impose an illegal transfer ban (a ban we had to later accept as part of the 5 way agreement), ironically enough against a decision made by Lord Carloway.

 
Pretty sure that if we (Rangers) lost at arbitration, we have no right of appeal but Parks aren't covered by the same rules and could appeal to courts, hence the need to exclude them.
Yep that as far as I know is the crux of the reason they wish to disbar the business who has the right to be represented at the arbitrator hearings
 
Its not that complicated guys. The original ruling was that Parks were entitled to be represented. The SFA appealed against that decision and were granted permission to take it to the Court of Session to seek to have it overturned. The Court of Session told them to f*ck off, the original ruling that Parks could be represented stands.
Yes . Especially like the fvckk off part lol
 
Am I right in saying that we have shown the contract or is this a totally different issue .did they not say at last hearing it should be shown
 
“Hello, Mr Bisgrove, this is cinch here, how much to sponsor the famous Glasgow Rangers?”

“That’ll be £5 million per season son, the going rate for a premier club.”

“Sounds great, I’ll ring you back”



“Hello , Mr Dungcaster, this is cinch here, how much to sponsor the whole of Scottish football, including the Famous?”

“Er, £1.8 million per sesson”

:))
 
My theory from the start has been that just by winning the right to be included in the arbitration it’s all but confirmed the conflict that we are citing.

We would have to have provided the court with evidence that Parks and therefor Douglas Park has a horse in the race.

IMO obviously.
 
All our legal costs will be covered, that's every minute billed by lawyers, the only bad press is the sfa, and the spfl. Outside of Scotland nobody knows what is going on.
Looks like both Rangers FC and Parks costs will be incurred by SPL or would it be SFA mate ?

Given they both appointed QCs etc I hope is extremely large and impacting
 
Thanks for posting the update Mark. I was just thinking yesterday this had all gone quiet.

Cinch getting lots of publicity regardless.
 
Seen it’s getting paid but every penny of everybody’s time won’t and bad press cost companies. It’s all stuff that isn’t costing our rivals.
You’re absolutely right.
Winning a costs judgment, invariably means that you end up picking up 30% of your own costs.
How the system works is that costs are what is termed ‘taxed’ and that is the level you recover.
Invariably, that amount can be anything from about 50% to 70% of what you pay to your own lawyers.
Basically, as you said, even when you win in a lawsuit, you lose.
 
All our legal costs will be covered, that's every minute billed by lawyers, the only bad press is the sfa, and the spfl. Outside of Scotland nobody knows what is going on.
See post 95.
We will probably be lucky to get 70% of what we have paid and it may even be as low as 50%.
It is the same for Parks.
Basically, even when you win in a lawsuit, you lose.
 
I've explained it to you, you clearly don't or won't get it. I'm out, it's like debating with a wall.
It’s simple. If it costs us one penny, it’s one penny that our rivals aren’t spending. If a potential sponsor looks at media and sees a legal battle over a sponsor then that also has potential to cost us. A potential that our rivals don’t have. It’s not difficult to understand.
 
Remember when they had to let Lennon/celtc do whatever they wanted because they never had enough money to fight it in court? Blatant corruption.
I can’t find anything on google strangely. He had a touchline ban or something which celtc took to court and the SFA caved because they said they didn’t have money to fight it.
I do remember that. It wouldn’t be the first story like that that has disappeared from search engines.
 
Back
Top