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

Shottsbear said:
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
Click to expand...

Because it might have been of financial benefit to us! Whereas the current SPFL deal is not of any substantial benefit and it has been argued undermines value of current and/ or future commercial deals.
 
Given the dates Cinch must have been negotiating with the SPFL and Rangers simultaneously. Was this known to all parties, probably not. And there is such a thing as goodwill.
Also we're led to believe Cinch and the SPFL were brought together by a company who specialize in finding sponsorships. Was the purpose of this third party really to subvert commercial confidence, and quite possibly SPFL rules. Wouldn't surprise me.
It's quite possible Cinch broke off negotiations with Rangers after being persuaded a deal with the SPFL was better for their interests. Which would mean that somebody in Cinch, the SPFL, or the specialist company broke commercial confidentiality. It's also possible Rangers broke negotiations off with Cinch because the stadium naming rights deal breached the club's arrangements with Parks. Which again would smack of Cinch having a deal with the SPFL on the back burner in case Rangers didn't sign up.
A stadium naming rights deal, and the SPFL deal are very different. Rangers in negotiations with Cinch, but ultimately not coming to agreement seems perfectly normal to me. However, the third party, Cinch and the SPFL in negotiations at the same time as Cinch were talking to Rangers looks like dirty business to me.
 
Coisty09 said:
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
Click to expand...
This isn't a dig at you mate, but unless I was in court hearing it for myself I wouldn't be interested in anything that the Sun reports.

Even in court, Advocates are often no more than highly paid shit-stirrers who at best, are putting forward utter nonsense on behalf of their client (and for circa £2k per day who wouldn't?). Simply because an advocate has put forward a position doesn't mean that position holds water which is why there are proof hearings to test the evidence.

This hearing was only an appeal to be allowed to appeal. In the interests of justice it's often allowed just for the asking, as long as you're clearly not wasting court time.

Ultimately though, the only reliable source of info is the written judgement where the judge details what he's decided and why.
 
The wording says a lot, and nothing at the same time.

"the organisations explored the possibility of" renaming Ibrox could be as simple as

'hi, this is Rylan from cinch. We're in talks with the spfl about sponsoring the league and were wondering about sponsoring your stadium?'

'aye? What are you proposing?'

'Well, we would pay you 50k and call it' the cinch Ibrox stadium'... Great, innit? '

*click
 
Hehaw said:
Bit OT but would people genuinely be upset about us selling naming rights for Ibrox?

It honestly wouldn’t bother me as long as it was financially benefiting the club.
Click to expand...

Yes, 1000000% yes people would be upset and rightly so.

Ibrox is Ibrox and it doesn't belong to any company other than those who own our club. Accepting this would be a disgrace.
 
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...
I suppose it depends on why this alleged deal didn’t go ahead. Obviously both the Board and cinch would know about these discussions so I can’t see the Board kicking up the fuss they have if they knew that cinch would simply bring this up to prove their point.
 
Coisty09 said:
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!!
Click to expand...
Overactive imagination imo. Negotiations with Cinch were ongoing till 7th June contract with Parks signed in May.
So how is that "creating" a deal?
 
Grant K said:
Somehow I doubt that this would be Bisgrove‘s decision to make!
Click to expand...
He’d have been tasked with getting a partner and would be the fall guy. Ultimately I know it would be a board decision though
 
BillyBoys said:
Yes, 1000000% yes people would be upset and rightly so.

Ibrox is Ibrox and it doesn't belong to any company other than those who own our club. Accepting this would be a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Are you happy with the squad - do you think we should have strengthened the midfield in the Summer?
 
BrooklynBlue said:
Are you happy with the squad - do you think we should have strengthened the midfield in the Summer?
Click to expand...
In fairness, I wasn’t best pleased when we changed the name of the Govan stand

I understand Jardine was a club legend but where do you draw the line? Will Walter get a stand named after him? John Greig?
 
mart22 said:
Given the dates Cinch must have been negotiating with the SPFL and Rangers simultaneously. Was this known to all parties, probably not. And there is such a thing as goodwill.
Also we're led to believe Cinch and the SPFL were brought together by a company who specialize in finding sponsorships. Was the purpose of this third party really to subvert commercial confidence, and quite possibly SPFL rules. Wouldn't surprise me.
It's quite possible Cinch broke off negotiations with Rangers after being persuaded a deal with the SPFL was better for their interests. Which would mean that somebody in Cinch, the SPFL, or the specialist company broke commercial confidentiality. It's also possible Rangers broke negotiations off with Cinch because the stadium naming rights deal breached the club's arrangements with Parks. Which again would smack of Cinch having a deal with the SPFL on the back burner in case Rangers didn't sign up.
A stadium naming rights deal, and the SPFL deal are very different. Rangers in negotiations with Cinch, but ultimately not coming to agreement seems perfectly normal to me. However, the third party, Cinch and the SPFL in negotiations at the same time as Cinch were talking to Rangers looks like dirty business to me.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on thats how I read it from the article. The SPFL appear to be applying the old 'standard terms and conditions' ruse added to the SFA's QC throwing smoke around (deliberate confusion). That can look sensational if presented correctly particularly in the court of public opinion which is the SMSM.
 
Last edited:
Need to remember RFC did not seek interdict to prevent the arbitration process, it was Parks Holdings who sought interdict for being excluded from the arbitration process, which is against the SFA rules.
This contract , and Rangers negotiations with Cinch, are just noise, designed to deflect from the actual facts of the case currently in court.
Its the SFA rules that are "on trial" here, for want of a better term
 
Aww Skew said:
He’d have been tasked with getting a partner and would be the fall guy. Ultimately I know it would be a board decision though
Click to expand...
Possibly. It’s also possible that cinch approached Rangers (and mibee them as well). I didn’t see any rebuttal arguement so this is a completely one sided story. It also worth noting, if I read it correctly, that the SFA were told that the unredacted agreement between Parks and Rangers was not going to be made available to them.
 
Aww Skew said:
In fairness, I wasn’t best pleased when we changed the name of the Govan stand

I understand Jardine was a club legend but where do you draw the line? Will Walter get a stand named after him? John Greig?
Click to expand...

There will always be tradition, nostalgia and sentiment. But revenue streams in Scottish football are limited and not helped when the governing authorities conjure up deals like they are doing now.

I'm not sure I'd be particularly happy with a stadium sponsorship. But I would accept the realities - especially if we were seeing the benefits on the field.
 
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...
Do you genuinely not see the difference between Rangers talking about entering into a commercial agreement with cinch to name the stadium for, presumably, millions and Rangers being forced to advertise cinch for thousands by a third party?
 
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...
The Cinch deal was for naming rights to the stadium.that is not what the court case is about. If we has wanted to negotiate with cinchover naming rights to the stadium then we are free to do so
 
What reasoning does SFA have to go against their own rules to not allow all interested parties access to this arbitration?
I could possibly understand if SPFL have argued against it but its the meant to be the impartial SFA doing so. The arbitration is all about a conflict of interest between Parks and Cinch, I really don't see how they can argue that Park has no relevance and why they would.
 
Even if that were true, negotiations could simply mean Cinch making an offer and being told where to go.

Not anything to get particularly irate about as they don't actually have the naming rights to the stadium.

Also worth noting that is the the SPFLs council who is stating we were in negotiations with Cinch - in the nicest way possible, how the feck would he know.
 
TN8 said:
Mate it's a direct quote from a fucking court transcript.

We're not looking too clever here at all. Not a great start!
Click to expand...
It is possible that cinch approach Rangers and we said no thanks. Any Solicitor/QC worth his salt would say that there was engagement between the parties. Also there does not appear to have been a rebuttal in court so our side of the arguement was never heard.
 
Have cinch got any right to share conversations had in private when they are commercially sensitive? What else have they shared?

We should be demanding how this information has come to light

We are perfectly entitled to discuss potential commercial arrangements as are cinch, but nothing should be leaked
 
Careca said:
Surely not another legal saga when it sounded an open and shut case. Seems to have all the makings of previous wastes of time and money.

What deal do we have with Parks outwith the team bus?
Click to expand...
It could be part of a deal not to promote other used car companies etc. in exchange for a supplying of coaches.

The naming rights seem like a red herring as it is coming from the spfl's lawyers.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
There will always be tradition, nostalgia and sentiment. But revenue streams in Scottish football are limited and not helped when the governing authorities conjure up deals like they are doing now.

I'm not sure I'd be particularly happy with a stadium sponsorship. But I would accept the realities - especially if we were seeing the benefits on the field.
Click to expand...
Would need to be silly money or sponsorship for an expansion for me not to resist it tbh.
 
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...
It’s not how it works. We were speaking to them and seeing what’s on offer which every club will do. We don’t have a deal with them because we never entered into a deal with them. That could be due to the conflict of interest for all anybody knows. There’s a reason there’s a PR man at the head of the SFA. This is spin.
 
Aww Skew said:
In fairness, I wasn’t best pleased when we changed the name of the Govan stand

I understand Jardine was a club legend but where do you draw the line? Will Walter get a stand named after him? John Greig?
Click to expand...
No disrepect to the Jardine family or Sandy - an all time great IMO, but I tend to agree. Having said that I didn't like the original name of the "Govan" stand either.

At some point not too far away I expect all of our stands to be named after commercial products - ergo I can't wait for the unveiling of the "Tunnock's Caramel Wafer Stand" and the "Graham's Dairies East Enclosure".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top