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.
The lawyer told the Court of Session on Wednesday that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’
Lord Keen spoke during a hearing in which the SFA succeeded in a bid to gain permission to appeal against an interim interdict which had been granted against it earlier this year.
Rangers chairman Douglas Park won the court order which forces the SFA to comply with its own guidelines on arbitration.
The businessman instructed lawyers to go to Scotland’s highest civil court as his company is in dispute with the SPFL over an £8 million sponsorship deal with cinch.
The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.
Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his company, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.
But on Wednesday, Lord Keen said his legal team had received a heavily redacted document which claimed to be a contract made in May 2021 between Parks of Hamilton and Rangers.
Lord Keen - who is acting for the Scottish Professional Football League Ltd - said his colleagues had been told the redactions had been made due to “commercial sensitivities”.
But he said that he needed to see the complete version of the document in order to find out the exact relationship between the two organisations. The lawyer also told Lord Braid that Rangers Football Club Ltd was also involved in negotiations with cinch.
He said the facts surrounding the case made it important for the unredacted document to be given to the court.
He said: “The fact is that right up to June 7, Rangers Football Club Limited was negotiating with cinch to sell them the naming rights to Ibrox so it became the cinch Ibrox stadium and of course that was a proposal of considerable value to Rangers Football Club Ltd.
“We do have considerable doubt about the way in which this document has been produced and redacted and we would invite your lordship to direct the petitioners to disclose the full contract to your lordship in a sealed envelope in order that the purported redactions can be examined and the issue of commercial sensitivity determined as it is a matter under the court.”
Earlier this year, a court of session judge passed an interim interdict which stated: “ad interim interdicts the respondent from appointing an arbitral tribunal pursuant to the notice to refer without first issuing a secretary’s notice to the petitioner in terms of Article 99.19 (a) of the respondent’s articles of association.”
Article 99.19 (a) of the SFA’s articles association states: “Any arbitration referred to arbitration in accordance with this Article 99 shall be conducted pursuant to the following provisions - upon receipt of a Notice to Refer by the Secretary, the Secretary, or his nominee, shall send notice (“the Secretary’s Notice”) to the Referring Party and to any other party or parties with an interest in the Dispute (“the Respondents” and, together with the Referring Party, “the Parties”) which notice shall include (i) a copy of the Notice to Refer; (ii) a list of the component members of the Tribunal Candidate List; (iii) a copy of the provisions of this Article 99; and (iv) an invitation to the Parties to nominate or agree to the appointment of arbitrators in accordance with this Article 99.19.”A Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision.
On Wednesday, the SFA’s lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, asked Lord Braid for permission to appeal the interim interdict to the Inner House of the Court of Session. Mr Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said legal tests showed that the SFA had the right of appeal.
He added: “There is an urgent need for a swift decision.”
Lord Braid granted permission for the SFA to appeal the decision saying that Mr Dunlop’s submissions passed legal tests.
He said that because he had granted the SFA’s request, there was no need for the unredacted document to be given to the court.
Lord Braid added: “For these reasons, I do propose to grant leave to reclaim.
“Given I have granted leave I do not propose to make an order for Lord Keen’s motion.”
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.
The lawyer told the Court of Session on Wednesday that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’
Lord Keen spoke during a hearing in which the SFA succeeded in a bid to gain permission to appeal against an interim interdict which had been granted against it earlier this year.
Rangers chairman Douglas Park won the court order which forces the SFA to comply with its own guidelines on arbitration.
The businessman instructed lawyers to go to Scotland’s highest civil court as his company is in dispute with the SPFL over an £8 million sponsorship deal with cinch.
The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.
Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his company, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.
But on Wednesday, Lord Keen said his legal team had received a heavily redacted document which claimed to be a contract made in May 2021 between Parks of Hamilton and Rangers.
Lord Keen - who is acting for the Scottish Professional Football League Ltd - said his colleagues had been told the redactions had been made due to “commercial sensitivities”.
But he said that he needed to see the complete version of the document in order to find out the exact relationship between the two organisations. The lawyer also told Lord Braid that Rangers Football Club Ltd was also involved in negotiations with cinch.
He said the facts surrounding the case made it important for the unredacted document to be given to the court.
He said: “The fact is that right up to June 7, Rangers Football Club Limited was negotiating with cinch to sell them the naming rights to Ibrox so it became the cinch Ibrox stadium and of course that was a proposal of considerable value to Rangers Football Club Ltd.
“We do have considerable doubt about the way in which this document has been produced and redacted and we would invite your lordship to direct the petitioners to disclose the full contract to your lordship in a sealed envelope in order that the purported redactions can be examined and the issue of commercial sensitivity determined as it is a matter under the court.”
Earlier this year, a court of session judge passed an interim interdict which stated: “ad interim interdicts the respondent from appointing an arbitral tribunal pursuant to the notice to refer without first issuing a secretary’s notice to the petitioner in terms of Article 99.19 (a) of the respondent’s articles of association.”
Article 99.19 (a) of the SFA’s articles association states: “Any arbitration referred to arbitration in accordance with this Article 99 shall be conducted pursuant to the following provisions - upon receipt of a Notice to Refer by the Secretary, the Secretary, or his nominee, shall send notice (“the Secretary’s Notice”) to the Referring Party and to any other party or parties with an interest in the Dispute (“the Respondents” and, together with the Referring Party, “the Parties”) which notice shall include (i) a copy of the Notice to Refer; (ii) a list of the component members of the Tribunal Candidate List; (iii) a copy of the provisions of this Article 99; and (iv) an invitation to the Parties to nominate or agree to the appointment of arbitrators in accordance with this Article 99.19.”A Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision.
On Wednesday, the SFA’s lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, asked Lord Braid for permission to appeal the interim interdict to the Inner House of the Court of Session. Mr Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said legal tests showed that the SFA had the right of appeal.
He added: “There is an urgent need for a swift decision.”
Lord Braid granted permission for the SFA to appeal the decision saying that Mr Dunlop’s submissions passed legal tests.
He said that because he had granted the SFA’s request, there was no need for the unredacted document to be given to the court.
Lord Braid added: “For these reasons, I do propose to grant leave to reclaim.
“Given I have granted leave I do not propose to make an order for Lord Keen’s motion.”
