Keef Jackass aka SPFL Spokesmen reporting crisis talks over Cinch deal

muttley

Well-Known Member
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.

I was just about to mention that incident/s involving Celtc. The " nae money " excuse was trotted out to allow a free pass for any outrageous behaviour from the Piggery dwellers.
 

Grant K

Well-Known Member
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
This will surely depend upon the terms and conditions pertaining to the individual deals. If the Parks contract specifically states exclusivity in partnership dealings with the motor trade, and was entered into first, then that is what Rangers must provide or they are in breach.
 

blue diesel

Well-Known Member
What beats me is why should there be a clause against Rangers when we are the victims...
The only way that can happen if spfl are still putting all the blame on Rangers...
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
What beats me is why should there be a clause against Rangers when we are the victims...
The only way that can happen if spfl are still putting all the blame on Rangers...
That annoys me also. In what circumstances could it ever be right that a members board has the right to vote for a clause that singles out just one of their fellow members. Rangers invoked the rule I7 and was within their rights to do so and now we have a situation where a company has felt the need to single us out for special treatment.
 

DeeCeeTee

Well-Known Member
This will surely depend upon the terms and conditions pertaining to the individual deals. If the Parks contract specifically states exclusivity in partnership dealings with the motor trade, and was entered into first, then that is what Rangers must provide or they are in breach.
I agree. Rangers must have had to back up their claims successfully. The issue now though is cinch are the ones who hold a veto on what league level commercial partnerships Rangers can be involved in going forward.
 

KuwaitBear

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be surprised if Doncaster had put the clause in thinking he could use it to screw us over, but in typical legohead style ended up with what we see now.
 

stuart01x

Well-Known Member
I can’t help but be more than a bit skeptical that we will be on the receiving end of refereeing mistakes for the next 4 years. The SPFL will not fancy the embarrassment of its winners not advertising its main sponsor.
 

sprally

Well-Known Member
I can’t help but be more than a bit skeptical that we will be on the receiving end of refereeing mistakes for the next 4 years. The SPFL will not fancy the embarrassment of its winners not advertising its main sponsor.
We need content like this in the press, direct quotes from us.
Put pressure on the refs to be fair or maybe that wee split second for us.
Beggars have done it for years.
 

Robocop1960

Well-Known Member
We need content like this in the press, direct quotes from us.
Put pressure on the refs to be fair or maybe that wee split second for us.
Beggars have done it for years.
The board should just gather a video of the refs genuine mistakes :rolleyes:(wouldn't be too diffficult) and get it out into the MSM that we have serious concerns about the standard of refereeing without actually calling them cheats.And let it be known we will call them out at every opportunity.It has been said on here for long enough the club has plenty of evidence of what is at play here because the authorities won't listen to us but if the club say it they might take heed.
 
I’m sure that David Edgar stated on the daily update that an outside company had received £500000 as a finders fee for getting cinch . Why doesn’t a reporter ask Doncaster why he is not sourcing companies himself to justify his exorbitant wages .
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
I can’t help but be more than a bit skeptical that we will be on the receiving end of refereeing mistakes for the next 4 years. The SPFL will not fancy the embarrassment of its winners not advertising its main sponsor.
This new contract that they have muddled together should prevent any breach of contract that would of happened had Rangers won, the desperation resulted in match fixing last season with their placement linesmen and refs. Hopefully they won't be as desperate to do the same in the next one.
 

Mackania

Well-Known Member
I’m sure that David Edgar stated on the daily update that an outside company had received £500000 as a finders fee for getting cinch . Why doesn’t a reporter ask Doncaster why he is not sourcing companies himself to justify his exorbitant wages .
He doesn't speak to reporters. He hands in questions that he wants answered and pre-prepares answers. It's disgusting the way he acts.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
Which then begs the question why is the ability for cinch to do that in the contract in the first place?
Cinch have put it in presumably to protect themselves (say Parks wanted to do an SPFL deal). In reality if it happened SPFL would be acting against the interests of a member club which would be too much even for their credibility rating. In short Doncaster and the SPFL have fukked up, agreed to a clause that is unworkable and embarrassed themselves, cinch are delighted with the publicity and Rangers happy. I imagine cinch have said 'any deal' because if they named specific companies they would have a legal problem. Of course if this clause is true then the SPFL are still acting against Rangers presumably at the behest of the majority of its member clubs - then again they probably have done it behind their backs (except celtics - they will know everything).
 
Top