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

I'm not sure he was 'fibbing'. The problem is that 'negotiation' is a hugely ambiguous term.

For example, when still working, I was approached by one of our competitors to go work for them. I said I would need $6 million to cover the loss of my pension rights knowing full well that they would never agree to that because I wasn't really interested but curious to see how far they would go. Technically, I was 'negotiating' even though I never had any intention of doing the deal.
The remake of the 6 million dollar man takes a curious twist.
 
Looks like a mountain out of a mole hill from everyone now looking at our response.

Cinch: hello Rangers? We're currently in the process of sponsoring everycunt and their granny, and even their grannies dugs.
Rangers: ok
Cinch: we would be interested in looking at sponsorship deals with yourself if you can send any information.
Rangers: here's a list of available sponsorship opportunities. Likely just a list with pricing etc. which looks like it included the naming rights of the stadium but could potentially have excluded anything that would have been in conflict with Parks (whatever that might have been).

Certainly paints a different picture to sitting around a boardroom table and actively discussing terms of an impending deal.

Won't be surprised to see the courts ask for the redacted document to be supplied in full and for further evidence of negotiation between us and cinch.
 
Looks like a mountain out of a mole hill from everyone now looking at our response.

Cinch: hello Rangers? We're currently in the process of sponsoring everycunt and their granny, and even their grannies dugs.
Rangers: ok
Cinch: we would be interested in looking at sponsorship deals with yourself if you can send any information.
Rangers: here's a list of available sponsorship opportunities. Likely just a list with pricing etc. which looks like it included the naming rights of the stadium but could potentially have excluded anything that would have been in conflict with Parks (whatever that might have been).the docuem

Certainly paints a different picture to sitting around a boardroom table and actively discussing terms of an impending deal.

Won't be surprised to see the courts ask for the redacted document to be supplied in full and for further evidence of negotiation between us and cinch.

As I understand it, this hearing was about allowing the SPFL/SFA to appeal against the ruling that Parks be included in the arbitration process. It wasn't about the substance of the dispute between Rangers and the SPFL. As such, the document is only of interest insofar as it proves Parks to have a right to be included.
 
And why did cinch offer Rangers a better deal than the whole of the SPFL got?
I know you said you'd heard this. But Douglas Park's response to the BBC I think contradicts it.

“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.”
I'm not sure he was 'fibbing'. The problem is that 'negotiation' is a hugely ambiguous term.

For example, when still working, I was approached by one of our competitors to go work for them. I said I would need $6 million to cover the loss of my pension rights knowing full well that they would never agree to that because I wasn't really interested but curious to see how far they would go. Technically, I was 'negotiating' even though I never had any intention of doing the deal.

I can't identify any ambiguity with what DP says. He's not even saying that they didn't offer a deal for naming rights of Ibrox specifically, which would perhaps allow for the possibility of them offering us something else (which was more than they offered the SPFL in your scenario). He's categorically denying that any proposed deals or talks whatsover were occurring. So, I'm afraid I think that one has been put to bed.

Unless, of course, they offered us something last year (2020) or before? But even then, no negotiations were taking place (according to Rangers) at the time the QC states they were. Therefore I stand by the 'apparently fibbing' accusation. At the very least, they have discombobulated the definition of 'negotiate' to such an extent for the sole purpose of insinuating something was happening that wasn't. That's lying. In the end either they are or Gordon Parks is. And I know who I believe.

Also in fairness I'm not sure your example is analogous. You were negotiating. You had entered discussions. Your intention was irrelevent. Rangers it seems, when asked, only provided cinch with a list of opportunities for which negotiations could be entered into. That's like me asking for a menu or a sample book from a shop. That's not negotiations. That's just an approach to see if theres anything of intrerest I might want to enter into negotiations about. And anyone saying otherwise is clearly deliberately being disingenuous. As the SPFL's QC was, according to our chaiman.
 
Last edited:
I know you said you'd heard this. But Gordon Parks's response to the BBC I think contradicts it.

“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.”


I can't identify any ambiguity with what GP says. He's not even saying that they didn't offer a deal for naming rights of Ibrox specifically, which would perhaps allow for the possibility of them offering us something else (which was more than they offered the SPFL in your scenario). He's categorically denying that any proposed deals or talks whatsover were occurring. So, I'm afraid I think that one has been put to bed.

Unless, of course, they offered us something last year (2020) or before? But even then, no negotiations were taking place (according to Rangers) at the time the QC states they were. Therefore I stand by the 'apparently fibbing' accusation. At the very least, they have discombobulated the definition of 'negotiate' to such an extent for the sole purpose of insinuating something was happening that wasn't. That's lying. In the end either they are or Gordon Parks is. And I know who I believe.

Also in fairness I'm not sure your example is analogous. You were negotiating. You had entered discussions. Your intention is irrelevent. Rangers it seems, when asked, only provided cinch with a list of opportunities for which negotiations could be entered into. That's like me asking for a menu or a sample book from a shop. That's not negotiations. That's just an approach to see if theres anything of intrerest I might want to enter into negotiations about. And anyone saying otherwise is clearly deliberately being disingenuous. As the SPFL's QC was, according to our chaiman.
Douglas Park not Gordon Parks mate. The latter being a Record journo.
 
Being an older supporter I've often found myself starting to type Donald Park instead of Douglas Park. The former being a Hearts football player back in the 70s and 80s.:confused:
I get similar. I have ME which means when I'm tired or brain fogged, I get cognitive dysfunction including memory recall issues, can get words mixed up and problems finding the right words (so often revert back to the simplest form of English). Have a real issue with remembering peoples names.

I often write posts on here and get stupid things wrong like the spelling of the simplest words. Thats why most of my posts have been edited and re-edited. When I read them back I think o_O did I really write that? Like having two different brains. Really bizarre.

But still, that's no excuse for that whopper. :eek: Mixing up someone you have huge respect for, with one you have none. That's a whole new level.
 
I get similar. I have ME which means when I'm tired or brain fogged, I get cognitive dysfunction including memory recall issues, can get words mixed up and problems finding the right words (so often revert back to the simplest form of English). Have a real issue with remembering peoples names.

I often write posts on here and get stupid things wrong like the spelling of the simplest words. Thats why most of my posts have been edited and re-edited. When I read them back I think o_O did I really write that? Like having two different brains. Really bizarre.

But still, that's no excuse for that whopper. :eek: Mixing up someone you have huge respect for, with one you have none. That's a whole new level.
Best of luck with the illness mate, sounds terrible. Your post should act as a reminder to those of us on here, and I include myself, who sometimes pounce on every wee mistake. There but for the grace of God and all that stuff.:(
 
The H&H daily update gave a good explanation on this today so well worth a listen.

Basically we are 100% in the right
What’s the jist mate?Seen it mentioned on the update email but still at work so not able to listen yet.
 
The H&H daily update gave a good explanation on this today so well worth a listen.

Basically we are 100% in the right
I don't think we are right mate.

We've already got the drama queens on here shredding Bisgrove, telling us it's embarrassing and desperately drawing comparisons with the Sports Direct cases.

I'm sure they wouldn't go all in with the hyperbole unless they were sure of their position :))
 
Best of luck with the illness mate, sounds terrible. Your post should act as a reminder to those of us on here, and I include myself, who sometimes pounce on every wee mistake. There but for the grace of God and all that stuff.:(
Ah nothing wrong with that. Can't worry about who we could be offending all the time. I think the vast majority know it's just a bit of fun pulling up people for the funny errors etc. and take it in the spirit it's intended. The 'In Lehmanns terms' one the other day a prime example. The world would be (and is becoming) a very dull place if we can't laugh at ourselves.
 
Say they were offering £25 million for 5 years, would you still be against it?

Personally I don’t have a problem with it, Ibrox will always be Ibrox to me no matter what company they put on front of it.
Problem is when commentators and the MSM are told to refer to it as some other name then it will start to become the normal for those who view from further afield and aren't diehards.

Having said that, any naming rights would only be for a relatively short time period so it could be changing regularly so would mean one particular name was less likely to stick. It could end up being a similar situation to the League Cup where there's been so many sponsors over the years that it's easier just to refer to it as the League Cup.
 
I keep seeing the narrative from the tims that somehow Cinch turned us down and now we're in the huff..

Don't believe this conversation went any other way than Rangers being approached by Cinch and us telling them no.
 
Problem is when commentators and the MSM are told to refer to it as some other name then it will start to become the normal for those who view from further afield and aren't diehards.

Having said that, any naming rights would only be for a relatively short time period so it could be changing regularly so would mean one particular name was less likely to stick. It could end up being a similar situation to the League Cup where there's been so many sponsors over the years that it's easier just to refer to it as the League Cup.
I’ve lived in Yorkshire for 25 years. Bradford City ground has been sponsored by several companies in that time. Locals still call it Valley Parade
 
The fact that the SFA felt emboldened enough to release Rangers private dealings with a private company, however incorrectly they did so, speaks of a terrible level of professionalism and could potentially point towards confidences having been broken by cinch.
I agree. The SPFL should not have any knowledge of confidential discussions between Rangers and cinch
I doubt Rangers have leaked this info so we may have grounds to sue cinch for breaching privacy laws once this pans out
 
If there has been any genuine negotiations there would almost certainly have been some confidentiality agreement covering them.

Obviously cinch revealed their approach to the sfa lawyers. I doubt they’d have done that if there was a gag agreement ergo there were no negotiations
 
My purely speculative guess at what happened. Cinch approached us, we sent them a list of things they could sponsor. Unofficial discussions have discussed rough numbers. At some point we’ve got wind that they were about to do a deal with the spfl, essentially getting what they want for a fraction of the value to us. I wouldn’t even put it past them for it to get back to the SPFL that cinch were looking to sponsor in Scotland and they’ve pitched this as a cheap way to get your name all over the old firm and everywhere else. And to be fair they are getting a shitload for their £8m, it’s been vastly undersold.

Douglas park has protected his business and his investment in rangers by formally signing a new deal ahead of it, probably naming Parks as our “exclusive used car” sponsor listing commitments not to display competitors branding on our tops or stadium.

It’s now in Scots law ahead of the cinch deal, and the law is specifically referenced in the SPFL s own rule book, you cannot sign a deal which is forbidden on a preexisting contract. I can’t see how we can lose this
 
What was the crack with the Rangers Statement someone posted about 10 mins ago but was pulled? Was it bullshite?
 
If there has been any genuine negotiations there would almost certainly have been some confidentiality agreement covering them.

Obviously cinch revealed their approach to the sfa lawyers. I doubt they’d have done that if there was a gag agreement ergo there were no negotiations

Alternatively, cinch might not have wanted the SPFL to know that they were willing to offer Rangers more than they agreed to give the SPFL.

Or, to put it another way, the SPFL were mugs and cinch will not want to rub their faces in it.
 
I know you said you'd heard this. But Douglas Park's response to the BBC I think contradicts it.

“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.”


I can't identify any ambiguity with what DP says. He's not even saying that they didn't offer a deal for naming rights of Ibrox specifically, which would perhaps allow for the possibility of them offering us something else (which was more than they offered the SPFL in your scenario). He's categorically denying that any proposed deals or talks whatsover were occurring. So, I'm afraid I think that one has been put to bed.

Unless, of course, they offered us something last year (2020) or before? But even then, no negotiations were taking place (according to Rangers) at the time the QC states they were. Therefore I stand by the 'apparently fibbing' accusation. At the very least, they have discombobulated the definition of 'negotiate' to such an extent for the sole purpose of insinuating something was happening that wasn't. That's lying. In the end either they are or Gordon Parks is. And I know who I believe.

Also in fairness I'm not sure your example is analogous. You were negotiating. You had entered discussions. Your intention was irrelevent. Rangers it seems, when asked, only provided cinch with a list of opportunities for which negotiations could be entered into. That's like me asking for a menu or a sample book from a shop. That's not negotiations. That's just an approach to see if theres anything of intrerest I might want to enter into negotiations about. And anyone saying otherwise is clearly deliberately being disingenuous. As the SPFL's QC was, according to our chaiman.
Basically it's an Invite to Treat
 
This smells like rhatbag McLennan, the well known Rupert Murdoch arse licker, throwing shite at the walls to see which diarrhea sample of his sticks.
 
Roll forward 12 months, we win the case, betting company ban in place, they sponsor our shirts and we get the full 8 million
 
Its deflection and irrelevant, the SPFL are trying to force through a deal which is against their own rules, Rangers pointed this out to them before they signed the deal, the rest is simply hot air and bluster.

They have been given leave to appeal, be interesting what angle they will come back with or perhaps we will see them ask Rangers (DP) to come to an agreement prior to the appeal date.

I personally hope Rangers tell them to go f90k themselves when they ask to negotiate and the deal is pulled.
 
The fact that the SFA felt emboldened enough to release Rangers private dealings with a private company, however incorrectly they did so, speaks of a terrible level of professionalism and could potentially point towards confidences having been broken by cinch.
Just a thought.
How did the SFA know about a private dealing with a private company?
Rangers told them?
Cinch told them?
Cinch will benefit from their name being mentioned at all turns.
 
The fact that the SFA felt emboldened enough to release Rangers private dealings with a private company, however incorrectly they did so, speaks of a terrible level of professionalism and could potentially point towards confidences having been broken by cinch.
And some clowns on here wonder why we don’t reveal all the details of our commercial contracts to these people.
 
I hope this is not one of those "no smoke without fire" stories. As in snooker player says yes I was in room with shady characters and yes they did ask about fixing a match and no I had no intention to do that ...
 
The issue isn't with cinch, and the SFA and SPFL don't have any issue with any discussion we did or didn't have with cinch. They have an issue with us, us being the big bad Rangers so get it right fucking up them.
The redactions pertain to the Parks contract surely?
The albeit bizarre link with cinch didn't need to be mentioned and has no relationship with the current legal matter. It's scum behaviour, welcome to Scotland
I might be just a simple small town bird lawyer, but this is 100% correct.
 
The fact that the SFA felt emboldened enough to release Rangers private dealings with a private company, however incorrectly they did so, speaks of a terrible level of professionalism and could potentially point towards confidences having been broken by cinch.
As said elsewhere in another thread a senior executive of cinch previously worked for McLennan.
 
Back
Top