Rangers take on SPFL over 8 million sponsorship deal

BlueKop

Well-Known Member
NOT GIVING A CINCH

Rangers take on SPFL over £8million title sponsorship deal with car sales firm cinch​


  • 22:36, 31 Jul 2021
  • Updated: 22:37, 31 Jul 2021

Share

RANGERS are taking on the SPFL over their £8million title sponsorship deal with car sales company cinch.
SunSport can reveal league chiefs are in a legal dispute with the Ibrox club over the £1.6m-a-year contract.
Douglas Park

Douglas ParkCredit: The Sun
As part of the five-year agreement, clubs must prominently display the company’s logo at games.
That includes the Cinch branding on the shirt sleeves of jerseys and on interview backdrops.
However, Rangers faced Livingston at Ibrox without Cinch appearing on their shirts or around the stadium.
There was also no player named the ‘cinch Man of the Match’, as agreed by every other club in the country.

Dream Team 2021/22​

DD-COMP-BREAMTEAM-scotland-1-1.jpg

PLAY DREAM TEAM FOR THE 2021/22 SEASON!
  • £100,000 in prize money up for grabs
  • £50million budget to build your best XI
  • Play in Mini Leagues against your mates, colleagues, etc
  • Click here to play for FREE
  • Dream Team app available through Apple Store and Google Play Store
It’s believed Gers and the SPFL have been in talks over the issue for weeks regarding “the fulfilment of rights obligations”.
But Rangers, whose chairman Douglas Park owns a car sales business, have pinpointed issues with the contract.
It’s understood Gers’ lawyers are convinced they are within their rights to refuse to comply and are refusing to back down.
Crucially, the issue is being watched closely by other Premiership clubs, leaving SPFL supremo Neil Doncaster under pressure to find a solution.
Read our Scottish transfer live blog for the latest news & gossip

DREAM TEAM IS BACK! SIGN UP NOW FOR THE 21/22 SEASON FOR YOUR CHANCE TO WIN £100,000

League chiefs and Gers were remaining tight-lipped on the fall-out last night for fear of prejudicing their legal fight.
A Rangers spokesman would only say: “This is not a matter for Rangers to comment upon. It is an SPFL matter and we would ask you to approach them if you want a comment.”
The development comes just days after Gers MD Stewart Robertson accused the SPFL of underselling Scottish football.

GERRO GRIPE Rangers boss Steven Gerrard on SPFL rule changes he’d like to see regarding matchday squads


Robertson said: “There’s several areas where the SPFL could be doing more and could be better.
“When you look at the television deal we’ve got in place with Sky — and Sky are fantastic partners, so no criticism of Sky whatsoever — we have undersold the product.
“We need to market Scottish football in a much better way than we do.
“The SPFL as a league is only getting £25m for 48 league games? How can we say that we’ve sold it well?

MOST READ IN FOOTBALL​


HEARTS 2 CELTIC 1
Souttar nods home late goal to give Jambos dramatic lead


TRANSFER NEWS LIVE
Celtic and Rangers latest plus news from Hearts, Hibs and rest of SPFL


DAVIE PROVAN
Lawwell has left Celtic in a state - spare me Brown's statue demand


GERRO GRIPE
Rangers boss Steven Gerrard on SPFL rule changes he'd like in future

“That’s been undersold and that’s a key area where I believe the SPFL executive need to be looking to do better.”
cinch are understood to be furious about this latest controversy.
They struck a record deal to replace Ladbrokes as title sponsors after lengthy talks.
League bosses described the contract as the ‘biggest ever’, with clubs earning £1.6m a year over the next five years.
 

Coatbridge Chancellor

Well-Known Member
RANGERS are taking on the SPFL over their £8million title sponsorship deal with car sales company cinch.

SunSport can reveal league chiefs are in a legal dispute with the Ibrox club over the £1.6m-a-year contract.

As part of the five-year agreement, clubs must prominently display the company’s logo at games.

That includes the Cinch branding on the shirt sleeves of jerseys and on interview backdrops.

However, Rangers faced Livingston at Ibrox without Cinch appearing on their shirts or around the stadium.

There was also no player named the ‘cinch Man of the Match’, as agreed by every other club in the country.

It’s believed Gers and the SPFL have been in talks over the issue for weeks regarding “the fulfilment of rights obligations”.

But Rangers, whose chairman Douglas Park owns a car sales business, have pinpointed issues with the contract.

It’s understood Gers’ lawyers are convinced they are within their rights to refuse to comply and are refusing to back down.

Crucially, the issue is being watched closely by other Premiership clubs, leaving SPFL supremo Neil Doncaster under pressure to find a solution.

League chiefs and Gers were remaining tight-lipped on the fall-out last night for fear of prejudicing their legal fight.

A Rangers spokesman would only say: “This is not a matter for Rangers to comment upon. It is an SPFL matter and we would ask you to approach them if you want a comment.”

cinch are understood to be furious about this latest controversy.

They struck a record deal to replace Ladbrokes as title sponsors after lengthy talks.

League bosses described the contract as the ‘biggest ever’, with clubs earning £1.6m a year over the next five years.
 

Helander

Well-Known Member
We are always at the club to take stands if they feel they are within their rights then they should
There is no precedent for a club successfully rejecting a league sponsor.

The clubs legal team have a track record for making an arse of it. The SD renegotiations followed by elite and Hummel are the biggest examples.

I hope I’m wrong but I have no confidence in them successfully challenging something like this
 

MTP

Well-Known Member
RANGERS are taking on the SPFL over their £8million title sponsorship deal with car sales company cinch.

SunSport can reveal league chiefs are in a legal dispute with the Ibrox club over the £1.6m-a-year contract.

Douglas Park

Douglas ParkCredit: The Sun
As part of the five-year agreement, clubs must prominently display the company’s logo at games.

That includes the Cinch branding on the shirt sleeves of jerseys and on interview backdrops.

However, Rangers faced Livingston at Ibrox without Cinch appearing on their shirts or around the stadium.

There was also no player named the ‘cinch Man of the Match’, as agreed by every other club in the country.

It’s believed Gers and the SPFL have been in talks over the issue for weeks regarding “the fulfilment of rights obligations”.

But Rangers, whose chairman Douglas Park owns a car sales business, have pinpointed issues with the contract.

It’s understood Gers’ lawyers are convinced they are within their rights to refuse to comply and are refusing to back down.

Crucially, the issue is being watched closely by other Premiership clubs, leaving SPFL supremo Neil Doncaster under pressure to find a solution.


League chiefs and Gers were remaining tight-lipped on the fall-out last night for fear of prejudicing their legal fight.

A Rangers spokesman would only say: “This is not a matter for Rangers to comment upon. It is an SPFL matter and we would ask you to approach them if you want a comment.”

The development comes just days after Gers MD Stewart Robertson accused the SPFL of underselling Scottish football.


Robertson said: “There’s several areas where the SPFL could be doing more and could be better.

“When you look at the television deal we’ve got in place with Sky — and Sky are fantastic partners, so no criticism of Sky whatsoever — we have undersold the product.

“We need to market Scottish football in a much better way than we do.

“The SPFL as a league is only getting £25m for 48 league games? How can we say that we’ve sold it well?

“That’s been undersold and that’s a key area where I believe the SPFL executive need to be looking to do better.”

cinch are understood to be furious about this latest controversy.

They struck a record deal to replace Ladbrokes as title sponsors after lengthy talks.

League bosses described the contract as the ‘biggest ever’, with clubs earning £1.6m a year over the next five years.
 

Brady84

Well-Known Member
Good stuff rangers, why should we have their shite on our tops.

I fully agree with this, I have no idea of our commercial deals, but if your looking at 1.6m a year /12 teams, /38 games each Your looking at £3508 a game to advertise on both our shirt & on any TV interviews..... My local corner shop/mot garage or whoever would pay more than that for the same coverage
 

ShieldhallBear

Well-Known Member
I fully agree with this, I have no idea of our commercial deals, but if your looking at 1.6m a year /12 teams, /38 games each Your looking at £3508 a game to advertise on both our shirt & on any TV interviews..... My local corner shop/mot garage or whoever would pay more than that for the same coverage
Horrifying when you say it like that mate. We could probably get more than 1.6m alone for a sleeve and ad board sponsor per season, never mind the whole league. What if we have our own sleeve sponsor which brings in more money and can’t show it? Then surely they aren’t acting in the best interests of one of their member clubs.
 

Mr Aqua

Well-Known Member
I'd imagine it's something to do with our own sponsors on our shirt and having to have cinch on it too.

Only guessing but maybe the club aren't happy that cinch get a place on our shirt for a low amount of money. Robertson pretty much slaughtered the SPFL for underselling the Scottish game.
 

Stoorie

Well-Known Member
The governing body and custodians of the game should have no rights whatsoever, to tell individual clubs what sponsors they can and can’t have on any clubs shirts.
If a club has a sponsorship deal then it’s got nothing to do with anyone other than the agreed party’s.
Commercial agreements are now being high-jacked to make more money for the league, and not for clubs looking for sponsors to promote themselves.
Theft is the word.
 

dazzapat

Well-Known Member
Rangers clearly value space on the shirt, more than the SPFL do.

Remember that the £1.6m per year they talk about is between all the clubs, we’d probably make that ourselves selling a section of the strip.

The SPFL have been knowingly underselling our teams for years, it’s about time someone stood up to them and made them earn their money.
 

Helander

Well-Known Member
Based on what?

We’ve every right to question and highlight the paltry sponsorship deal - and the necessity to allow space on our shirts.

It impacts our own deals and relationships.
Based on private sponsorship on that sleeve space being against league rules.

We were happy to have the SPFL patch on our arm for free last year, why didn’t we challenge it then?

I’m not taking the leagues side, I just can’t see something like this being viable, it would have been done before if it was.
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
1.6m between all clubs and we’ve to have the name on our strip? We could probably get more than half that ourselves for the space on our strip.
 

Kubala

Well-Known Member
Not sure I like the sound of this one tbh, sounds needlessly combative
If the SPFL have signed something that doesn't specify it's necessary they deserve to be challenged on it from a position of pure professionalism. Remember we've had bigger issues with them over the years, this is probably just picking a fight as you've said but one we're hopefully in the right on.
 
Last edited:

Davie Weir

Well-Known Member
Based on private sponsorship on that sleeve space being against league rules.

We were happy to have the SPFL patch on our arm for free last year, why didn’t we challenge it then?

I’m not taking the leagues side, I just can’t see something like this being viable, it would have been done before if it was.
Bit confused here but is the Cinch sponsorship outwith the actual SPFL logo?
 

Humbug

Well-Known Member
Granted I haven't read this article, but rest assured if Douglas Park has backed this against Neil Doncaster, and given Doncastsers past history there is cause for concern. For him to still be in his position given the shambles of his tenure is a sad indictment on the state of our game.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Based on private sponsorship on that sleeve space being against league rules.

We were happy to have the SPFL patch on our arm for free last year, why didn’t we challenge it then?

I’m not taking the leagues side, I just can’t see something like this being viable, it would have been done before if it was.

Did it have a sponsors name on it?
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
Based on private sponsorship on that sleeve space being against league rules.

We were happy to have the SPFL patch on our arm for free last year, why didn’t we challenge it then?

I’m not taking the leagues side, I just can’t see something like this being viable, it would have been done before if it was.

That was a league badge because the inept authorities failed to land a sponsor.

With our increasing partnerships, we are being forced to give up space for peanuts.

Of course we should be questioning it. It’s about putting Doncaster in the spotlight, as we’re doing with referencing the television deal.
 

Mr_Miscellaneous

Well-Known Member
If the SPFL have signed something that doesn't specify it's necessary the deserve to be challenged on it from a position of pure professionalism. Remember we've had bigger issues with them over the years, this is probably just picking a fight as you've said but one we're hopefully in the right on.
They're professionalism should be called into question at every single turn.

The vote fiasco, the league reconstruction nonsense, the dossier, the bizarre coin-flip of the compliance officer role, scattergun implementation of covid protocols.

Hell, even their fundamental job of selling SPFL rights overseas.

Last year they said there was "no market" for SPFL rights in India. So we bought the rights and then sold them to Star Sports in India for a profit.

They are not good at their jobs. I would not be at all surprised to hear they didn't write the contracts up correctly and that we are correct on this.
 

Helander

Well-Known Member
That was a league badge because the inept authorities failed to land a sponsor.

With our increasing partnerships, we are being forced to give up space for peanuts.

Of course we should be questioning it. It’s about putting Doncaster in the spotlight, as we’re doing with referencing the television deal.
The thing is though, the best case scenario is we don’t have to wear the patch, other clubs stop and then the contract is ripped up. We can’t sell that space afterwards as it’s against league rules.

Im not sure that’s worth risking all of the potential headaches that come with taking the league to court
 

Steve Snedden

Well-Known Member
Anyone got a clue?

I assume as part of our agreements with the league we consent that they act on our (and every other club's) behalf?

Are we questioning the competency or integrity of those charged with the negations? I'm surprised there is scope for this kind of challenge or is it more to do with the space on our shirts?

I welcome every opportunity to fight with the SPL but if we sign up to a structure that allows the league to act for everyone then I'm not sure how we make a case?

The potential value of any deal even with comparable data is surely subjective?
 

Brady84

Well-Known Member
Rangers clearly value space on the shirt, more than the SPFL do.

Remember that the £1.6m per year they talk about is between all the clubs, we’d probably make that ourselves selling a section of the strip.

The SPFL have been knowingly underselling our teams for years, it’s about time someone stood up to them and made them earn their money.

Replied above 1.6m between 12 teams over 38 games is £3508 a game, If we can't sell advertising on our strip & behind Gerrard + normally 2 first team players for interviews per game then someone is in trouble

Even if you just take todays game, 23k at the game, + 23k with free VST watching on rangers TV & lets say 54k watching on Sky(Although probably much more) That's 100k views for £3508 which is 3.5p per view, You couldn't buy advertising on facebook/twitter on anywhere else for that kind of price...

Scale it up its like paying someone on twitter/tick tock or w/e with 10million followers to buy whatever shit you are selling and if you make more than 350k you are in profit
 

BrotherMoses

Well-Known Member
There is no precedent for a club successfully rejecting a league sponsor.

The clubs legal team have a track record for making an arse of it. The SD renegotiations followed by elite and Hummel are the biggest examples.

I hope I’m wrong but I have no confidence in them successfully challenging something like this
Don't take this the wrong way, but you suck the energy out of this forum like a Dementor
 

wsb&warmy

Well-Known Member
Anyone got a clue?

I assume as part of our agreements with the league we consent that they act on our (and every other club's) behalf?

Are we questioning the competency or integrity of those charged with the negations? I'm surprised there is scope for this kind of challenge or is it more to do with the space on our shirts?

I welcome every opportunity to fight with the SPL but if we sign up to a structure that allows the league to act for everyone then I'm not sure how we make a case?

The potential value of any deal even with comparable data is surely subjective?
I could be very well wrong here, but I'm guessing our gripe is the 'measly' fee we receive for the privilege of having the Cinch branded league patches on our sleeves compared to what the likes of Tomket Tires pay us.

It also may be that the Cinch deal is far less than Bank of Scotland or Ladbrokes was worth in years gone by ?

My guess is that we as a club are wanting the SPFL to renegotiate the terms of the current sponsorship since we believe they've undersold it. I'd also imagine that we're wanting a seat at the table (along with other clubs) when future sponsorships are negotiated, since we don't trust the current top brass to do their job properly.

It's more or less what Stewart Robertson was saying in his latest interview.
 
Top