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

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.
It's not Ibrox being sold though, just the name Ibrox. Not to keen on it either but it will happen eventually I'm sure.
 
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.
Its not about tradition or nostalgia. It is however about sentiment and whichever company oversees the Rangers FC operations is merely a custodian of the stadium that we the support built as a living monument to those who perished. Ground zero is highly unlikely to be built upon or sold off unless its in keeping with the current (possibly generations in the future) New Yorkers sentiment on the matter. Apologies if that's too emotive an argument against your financial stance.
 
Its not about tradition or nostalgia. It is however about sentiment and whichever company oversees the Rangers FC operations is merely a custodian of the stadium that we the support built as a living monument to those who perished. Ground zero is highly unlikely to be built upon or sold off unless its in keeping with the current (possibly generations in the future) New Yorkers sentiment on the matter. Apologies if that's too emotive an argument against your financial stance.
A temporary name change in exchange for much needed cash is being compared to rebuilding on top of the twin towers footprint? That's not too emotive an argument, it is too batshit fucking off the scale crazy.
 
A temporary name change in exchange for much needed cash is being compared to rebuilding on top of the twin towers footprint? That's not too emotive an argument, it is too batshit fucking off the scale crazy.
A temporary name change that would relieve the financial burden each year on the current owners of the naming rights. With the amount of money they have put in and are required to continue to put in on order for the club to function, I really couldn't blame them for hearing out any offers on the table.
 
A temporary name change in exchange for much needed cash is being compared to rebuilding on top of the twin towers footprint? That's not too emotive an argument, it is too batshit fucking off the scale crazy.
Both are memorial spots to those whom lost their lives. There are differences. The manner in which they lost their lives is different in that one was a targeted attack and the other was a terrible accident. The only comparison I made is they are both memorials because in my opinion 1 avoidable loss of life, in any situation, is too many!
 
Both are memorial spots to those whom lost their lives. There are differences. The manner in which they lost their lives is different in that one was a targeted attack and the other was a terrible accident. The only comparison I made is they are both memorials because in my opinion 1 avoidable loss of life, in any situation, is too many!
And one is talking about a temporary name change, leaving the stadium exactly as is, except called a different name by commentators. The other is literally building on top of the ashes of the fallen men and women. The fact the comparison entered your head in the first place is only beaten in scale by the absurdity of you trying to defend that opinion.
 
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

Yes, it's evidence. They have every right to rely on it.
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.

I'm worried that it's not that straight forward. The other side may argue there was no concern about conflict of interest flagged when there was discussions about renaming the ground so why is there now.
 
Last edited:
Tramps over at kiddiefiddler are having a field day over this,let them laugh until they're next defeat which will be:

the morra......
 
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?
It has zero relevance or should have under corporate law as both deals are independent of each other and commercially sensitive, irrespective of cinch being a key player in both.
 
None they're lashing out knowing this would be made public. Roddy dunlop the paper gatherer is living the dream of every Celtic fan to obsess over and challenge Rangers at every opportunity
Roddy Dunlop is one of Scotland’s most respected QC’s and the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocate.

I‘m sure he will be greatly offended to be confused with Scotlands most gifted low level paper gather Rod McKenzie:))

Worry not I'm sure he’ll be too busy laughing to litigate your greatly damaging slur on his character:cool:
 
And one is talking about a temporary name change, leaving the stadium exactly as is, except called a different name by commentators. The other is literally building on top of the ashes of the fallen men and women. The fact the comparison entered your head in the first place is only beaten in scale by the absurdity of you trying to defend that opinion.

Perhaps the absurdity is with you friend?

50 years I've been following my team. I have a direct link to both situations. Strairway 13 was mine and my Dads spot, I wasn't there on the day, and like many families that day we never knew if he was alive or dead until he came home after the pub later that evening. Others were not so fortunate. Secondly my partner was also a few blocks from the towers when they got hit she lived and worked in NY at the time. I have to deal with her anxiety every year around this time so unlike most folk here in the UK I'm still living with its consequences.

There is no way I'd accept a temp or otherwise name change just for a temp cash injection. You are free to feel how you wish about any of this but dont expect me too.
 
It has zero relevance or should have under corporate law as both deals are independent of each other and commercially sensitive, irrespective of cinch being a key player in both.

If our defence is conflict of interest then surely it's relevant? Cinch on our shirt damages arrangements with another sponsor but the Cinch Ibrox Stadium doesn't?
 
Perhaps the absurdity is with you friend?

50 years I've been following my team. I have a direct link to both situations. Strairway 13 was mine and my Dads spot, I wasn't there on the day, and like many families that day we never knew if he was alive or dead until he came home after the pub later that evening. Others were not so fortunate. Secondly my partner was also a few blocks from the towers when they got hit she lived and worked in NY at the time. I have to deal with her anxiety every year around this time so unlike most folk here in the UK I'm still living with its consequences.
...Mate, you are comparing a commentator calling Ibrox something slightly different once a fortnight in order to generate funds with people building on top of a memorial to 3000 odd dead folk. Not much else to say to that tbh. Utterly baffling.
 
Yes, it's evidence. They have every right to rely on it.


I'm worried that it's not that straight forward. The other side will argue there was no concern about conflict of interest flagged when there was discussions about renaming the ground so why is there now.
It might have been flagged and that’s why we don’t have a deal with them. But given the fan engagement we’d need before going into a stadium naming deal it’s fair to assume it was very early stages, so probably nothing more than discussions with various companies to gauge the type of numbers we could be looking at. Somebody wouldn’t be doing their job right if they never got prices from a wide range of companies, many of whom could be ruled out further down the line for any number of reasons. I don’t see how a company getting prices for something can be used to prove or disprove something else.
 
...Mate, you are comparing a commentator calling Ibrox something slightly different once a fortnight in order to generate funds with people building on top of a memorial to 3000 odd dead folk. Not much else to say to that tbh. Utterly baffling.
To me its more than a name change. That you cant see or read that from my post is utterly baffling. We simply dont agree. I'm OK with that.
 
Is there any evidence put forward as to who made the first move to ' enter discussions ' ?
With Lord Keen fudging the statement it makes me think cinch made the approach.
Edit : Just seen McLaughlin's tweet
 
Some of the posters in here tying themselves in knots desperately trying to slant this negatively when it means SFA (pardon the pun) given the information we actually know. Which is actually nothing other than desperate SPFL lawyers' innuendo.

Oh yes, it's one of those threads. Hilarious and informative. Not about the subject, but rather the individuals commenting on it and their completely irrational opinions formed.

[closes updated potential yahoo FF log, otherwise known as the 'good guy/wank file'] :p

Thanks for the info and the insight into your petty little minds guys. Appreciate it as always.
  • 'Stadium naming rights is the same as in-stadium, on-shirt sponsorship etc.' :))
  • 'Exclusivity with Parks in one contract means they control every other deal we can enter into' :))
  • 'Just because fulfilling the SPFL cinch deal infringes Parks contract with us, so must be any other potential deal with cinch' :))
  • 'The club could not ask Parks to renegotiate any incompatible parts of existing contracts, had any offer been received when it was in its best interests to do so' :))
  • 'Discussing a contract is the same as actually signing one' :)):)):))
  • 'It's not possible that we were talking to cinch about naming rights as an alternative to having their branding in the stadium etc or some other way to negotiate a settlement to our issues in regards the SPFL contract on offer' :))
  • 'It's not possible that cinch approached us, and we just spoke to them out of courtesy' :))
  • 'It's not possible that cinch deliberately opened negotiations after hearing of our protests to try and put us in this very position' :))
  • 'It's not possible that we refused this deal for the same reasons that we refused the SPFL one and therefore strengthening our case rather than weakening it' :)):)):))
  • 'If we were talking to cinch at all it means we must be hypocrites' :))
  • 'A million other possibilities that small minds don't consider before diving straight down the plug hole for reasons know only to themselves but suspected by many' :))

Awww man. Just some of the pseudo-logic on display in here that has made my night. Set me up nicely for the match. Cheers peeps.
 
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?
There is nothing to say Rangers approached Cinch. Take note too that it is the SPFLs legal representation who has said there were negotiations for Rangers to sell naming rights to Cinch but no context to what that entailed; Cinch might have approached every team in the league.

Our argument is more that we are not required to display branding, as per the spfl's own rules, if it contravenes any existing commercial agreement. I'd agree it seems a bit of a pointless fight to take up if we were willing to consider selling them our naming rights but the reality is we clearly didn't and so any existing agreement with Parks would take priority. Might very well have been Park who blocked any deal with Cinch for naming rights too due to existing commercial contract with him - that if anything strengthems our position. The SPFL are doing their damnedness to keep Park away from any discussions
 
Roddy Dunlop is one of Scotland’s most respected QC’s and the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocate.

I‘m sure he will be greatly offended to be confused with Scotlands most gifted low level paper gather Rod McKenzie:))

Worry not I'm sure he’ll be too busy laughing to litigate your greatly damaging slur on his character:cool:
Oh dear. I may have jumped the gun here
 
The Rangers lawyer should suggest that clich offered more than the current spfl deal
I'd imagine that would be a dead certainty. From the pittance we are getting from the spfl sponsorship deal, I can't see any scenario where we would have got less from leasing out the naming rights.
 
I agree, but they are just reporting on what was said in a court of law.
And you think they would report the response by Rangers/Parks counsel? I sincerely doubt it. The 'in negotiations' could simply have been the offer of a meeting to discuss cinchs proposals. It may have been more of course.. but doubt we'll find out through the media.
 
Do we reckon Cinch were bidding for the branding opportunith BioWaveGo secured? Not stadium naming as such but the stadium branding that appeared this summer. Put it this way, I don't see how it could have been sold as the "Cinch Ibrox Stadium" with BioWaveGo plastered at the top. Thus I am assuming this was the deal on offer and being discussed, and thus actual naming of the stadium won't have been on the table even if suggested by cinch.
 
haha, superb. SPFL and SFA tying themselves in knots trying to spin this and making themselves look almost as amateur as they clearly are.
Our reason for not wanting Cinch as SPFL sponsor was that it compromised the business of Douglas Parks.
It now comes out in court that WE approached Cinch for possible commercial tie ups.
Not really sure why it's not US that's tying ourselves in knots???
 
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?
No.

The point rangers have quite rightly made is they weren't party to a deal that infringed upon their own commercial contracts. The spfls own rules suggest they are duty bound to consider that.

The rangers cinch Ibrox discussion did involve rangers.

It's a very pathetic excuse for a defence. And the judge should see it for that.
 
haha, superb. SPFL and SFA tying themselves in knots trying to spin this and making themselves look almost as amateur as they clearly are.
I have no doubt this was put out there in court with the full knowledge of the PR man at the top of the SFA purely to make our case look weak to the public and shut stir about naming rights. Celtc placed a media man at the top of the SFA for a reason.
 
There is nothing to say Rangers approached Cinch. Take note too that it is the SPFLs legal representation who has said there were negotiations for Rangers to sell naming rights to Cinch but no context to what that entailed; Cinch might have approached every team in the league.

Our argument is more that we are not required to display branding, as per the spfl's own rules, if it contravenes any existing commercial agreement. I'd agree it seems a bit of a pointless fight to take up if we were willing to consider selling them our naming rights but the reality is we clearly didn't and so any existing agreement with Parks would take priority. Might very well have been Park who blocked any deal with Cinch for naming rights too due to existing commercial contract with him - that if anything strengthems our position. The SPFL are doing their damnedness to keep Park away from any discussions

Is it not the case that there's no context because the documents Rangers provided are heavily redacted and they are asking for the unredacted versions?
 
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?
The commercial deal with Parks was signed on may 31st. The discussions with cinch ended on June 7th (probably the first meeting scheduled after the parks deal was signed when we told them no thanks). Seems to me we were deciding what to do discussing options and went with Parks instead. Once the parks deal was signed that’s a commercial deal which can now be impacted by cinch. That wasn’t true when we were in discussions initially with cinch
 
Is it not the case that there's no context because the documents Rangers provided are heavily redacted and they are asking for the unredacted versions?
No, as SPFLs legal representative is saying the redacted document is claiming to be a deal between Parks and Rangers.

There is no existing commercial agreement between Cinch and Rangers for it to be redacted.
 
Even if that’s true, what relevance does it have to this case?
That's the first question I asked myself too.

I don't like what I just read but it is not relevant to the case so wonder why it deserves such coverage, in court or in the media.
 
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?
Did we approach them to offer naming rights though?

Or did this company which has been pursuing really aggressive marketing in sports recently approach us?
 
No, as SPFLs legal representative is saying the redacted document is claiming to be a deal between Parks and Rangers.

There is no existing commercial agreement between Cinch and Rangers for it to be redacted.

Ah right, I'm trying to follow on twitter in between the match thread.
 
Ah right, I'm trying to follow on twitter in between the match thread.
It seems to be a tidbit thrown in from SPFL lawyers to try and obtain an unredacted contract between Rangers and Parks.

They aren't getting the unredacted document, all they have got really is the right to appeal the decision that Park won not long ago. That decision was basically saying SFA arbitration couldn't go ahead without involvement of Parks of Hamilton.

I'm at a loss as to why SPFL and SFA are even fighting Parks right to be involved in any arbitration process.
 
It seems to be a tidbit thrown in from SPFL lawyers to try and obtain an unredacted contract between Rangers and Parks.

They aren't getting the unredacted document, all they have got really is the right to appeal the decision that Park won not long ago. That decision was basically saying SFA arbitration couldn't go ahead without involvement of Parks of Hamilton.

I'm at a loss as to why SPFL and SFA are even fighting Parks right to be involved in any arbitration process.

me neither. People are brought in as third parties all the time and it makes sense as it would be his business that would suffer.
 
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
because it's our business, and those corrupt shits would communicate it
to our enemies advantage (not paranoia, fact)
 
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
I guess because we were looking at our own deal with cinch about stadium sponsoring, something that I don’t actually mind as it brings in lots if revenue.
Its only a matter of time it happens
 
RANGERS have blasted back in their ongoing row with the SPFL – and say NO negotiations took place over a possible stadium sponsorship deal with cinch.

The Ibrox club insist it was the league’s new title sponsors who approached them “to discuss commercial opportunities” earlier this year.

Rangers say no 'negotiations' took place about renaming Ibrox

1
Rangers say no 'negotiations' took place about renaming Ibrox
The Scottish champions are refusing to display cinch branding on team shirts, advertising boards or other media board.

Rangers chairman Douglas Park believes that the £8m deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement between his company, Parks of Hamilton, and the club.

The matter is being dealt with at the Court of Session where Advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC said earlier today that the club had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium.

Acting for the SPFL, 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.

Douglas Park had 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 to seek a resolution.
Rangers, though, have hit back to say that isn’t the case.

They told the BBC: “Cinch approached Rangers to discuss commercial opportunities in early 2021.

“Rangers provided information on what opportunities might be available.

“This is common practice for our commercial team.

“At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers.

"Contrary to the SPFL’s claims, no ‘negotiations’ took place.”

Rangers believe they don’t need to display cinch branding because clubs are “not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned”.
 
A sure way to piss off a court is to give them a heavily redacted document without justification.

Might just be me but I thought the SPFL’s request to see the contract between Rangers and Park was reasonable and I don’t understand why they’re being so secretive about it.
We didn't, we gave the SPFL a redacted document. They then took it to the court to try and get them to order Rangers provide SPFL an u redacted version. Court said this is not required as allowing SPFL to appeal the decision that Parks of Hamilton won saying any arbitration process had to include them.
 
Anyone can make an offer to sponsor the club the fact that Rangers representatives sat in discussions with them could have been more of a courtesy thing to listen to what they had to say than having any serious relevance.
Never say no until you hear the facts Rangers obviously weren't interested when they heard the details about what they wanted to do,that's what I take out of this story.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top