Rangers take on SPFL over 8 million sponsorship deal

a_weir

Well-Known Member
cinch-header.jpg

That’s the difference

I could have sworn Livi just had the word ‘cinch’ on their sleeve today?
 

Govan36

Well-Known Member
£1.6m a season and they get sponsorship on every teams shirt, they really are unfit for purpose
"League bosses described the contract as the ‘biggest ever’, with clubs earning £1.6m a year over the next five years."

The combined SPFL clubs are set to divide £1.6M per year and that's the biggest ever? FFS no wonder we are a footballing backwater. How much of a dent would the share of £1.6M per year put in Celtc's much vaunted wage bill ?

If the SPFL hadn't struck the "biggest ever deal" how much do we think Cinch would pay for that sort of advertising for individual clubs ? On their own I reckon Rangers would be able to broker a deal for more than £1.6M per year.

No wonder these bar stewards/ League Bosses have kept the value of this ‘biggest ever’ deal under wraps until now.

My calculator indicates that if Rangers had a 50,000 crowd at Ibrox for 1 game and charged an average of £32 per person, that would amount to £1.6M.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
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

It’s the start of a push by the club with regards to rights, specifically television.

I would imagine we’ll illustrate how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship independently in comparison to an SPFL collective deal.

Allied to the farcical dealings with SKY and domestic cup sponsorship, we’re again showing an executive unfit for Scottish football.
 

Coatbridge Chancellor

Well-Known Member
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.
While I'm sure that is right, I'm not sure how legal action/refusal to display it is the form of action we take to achieve that.
 

Helander

Well-Known Member
It’s the start of a push by the club with regards to rights, specifically television.

I would imagine we’ll illustrate how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship independently in comparison to an SPFL collective deal.

Allied to the farcical dealings with SKY and domestic cup sponsorship, we’re again showing an executive unfit for Scottish football.
It’s irrelevant how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship when it’s against league rules to have a sponsor on that sleeve.

I’m struggling to view this as anything other than picking a fight.
 

Macky1986

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.
Mate have you ever had anything positive to say about Rangers?
 

Cheech

Well-Known Member
Yasssss Rangers.

If we pull this off then it shows how incompetent these mugs are that they can even get a sponorship contract right. If you ever need proof its the same people running the league and the scum then watch this shambles unfold.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
It’s irrelevant how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship when it’s against league rules to have a sponsor on that sleeve.

I’m struggling to view this as anything other than picking a fight.

It’s not irrelevant when we are showing market value.

If we’re wanting to change the governance of the game and have an influence, then these are good entry points

How is defending our brand “picking a fight”?

An odd take.
 

Est1872

Well-Known Member
It’s irrelevant how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship when it’s against league rules to have a sponsor on that sleeve.

I’m struggling to view this as anything other than picking a fight.

We can see that. :))

The club are playing the long game here in terms of our commercial interests, and they are totally right to do so.
 

Mac72

Well-Known Member
Even taking away Parks of Hamilton or the very poor fee. Who at the SFA thought it was a good idea to go with a league name sponsorship of Cinch?

Cinch - Slang. a thing easy to do

I mean, how pub team do they want the league to look?

Glen's vodka was bad enough but this was just taking the piss.
 

Macky1986

Well-Known Member
Even taking away Parks of Hamilton or the very poor fee. Who at the SFA thought it was a good idea to go with a league name sponsorship of Cinch?

Cinch - Slang. a thing easy to do

I mean, how pub team do they want the league to look?

Glen's vodka was bad enough but this was just taking the piss.
Just a proper tinpot league
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
Even taking away Parks of Hamilton or the very poor fee. Who at the SFA thought it was a good idea to go with a league name sponsorship of Cinch?

Cinch - Slang. a thing easy to do

I mean, how pub team do they want the league to look?

Glen's vodka was bad enough but this was just taking the piss.

Also a 5-year deal!

It shows they had little confidence in being able to secure future sponsorship so tied clubs to this.
 

yardie

Well-Known Member
Probably boils down to whether or not the SPFL have the right to sell advertising space on our jerseys, space we could sell ourselves for more.

I would imagine that this would be a simple fact to establish, and would be surprised if we challenged this without doing our homework.

I am sure that the smaller clubs would be delighted by the Cinch money as it is likely more that they could achieve individually, but the larger clubs, I.e. us and maybe them, could earn more individually.

Interesting to see how this works out.
 

FortBear

Active Member
Does that paltry 1.6million a year get split 42 ways?! If so, this surely shows we have far too many league clubs in Scotland.
 

CampsieStar

Active Member
Looks like we are not letting murduch McLennan, dhungcaster and liewell out of our sights after the farce last summer. They probably hoping it would all just go away so they could go back to status quo!
 

Br55mloanWATP

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
£133,333k p.a. assuming it's split between all 12 clubs evenly. Hoaching deal, Doncaster gets paid about three times that amount.
 

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
This might have something to do with Audi as we had the Audi logo in the background for media interviews at the Real Madrid game.
I reckon Rangers have done a deal with Audi and they don’t want to have to be associated with cinch as a result.
 

The Redcoat

Well-Known Member
Even taking away Parks of Hamilton or the very poor fee. Who at the SFA thought it was a good idea to go with a league name sponsorship of Cinch?

Cinch - Slang. a thing easy to do

I mean, how pub team do they want the league to look?

Glen's vodka was bad enough but this was just taking the piss.


I think they probably just go for whoever is willing to pay the most money.
 

frazz

Well-Known Member
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
It's not there a game being played

I think we will eventually wear it but it's being done to highlight the ineptitude of the commercial sales within the spfl

Along with robertson interview we are pushing that the spfl and Doncaster in particular are underselling the game

This will be to start pushing Doncaster out now robertson is on the spfl board again
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It’s the start of a push by the club with regards to rights, specifically television.

I would imagine we’ll illustrate how much we can charge for shirt sponsorship independently in comparison to an SPFL collective deal.

Allied to the farcical dealings with SKY and domestic cup sponsorship, we’re again showing an executive unfit for Scottish football.
Agree. I don’t think this is just picking an argument over theirs one thing but a way to highlight how badly our game is being run and undersold.
 

New York Bear

Well-Known Member
This might have something to do with Audi as we had the Audi logo in the background for media interviews at the Real Madrid game.
I reckon Rangers have done a deal with Audi and they don’t want to have to be associated with cinch as a result.
Audi was there due to it being a Real Madrid sponsor. Some wine company associated with Arsenal was there when we played them.
 

ForGodForCountryForever

Well-Known Member
Not sure I like the sound of this one tbh, sounds needlessly combative
As much as Id like to see Rangers take any chance to level those clowns I am sure the brass are too smart to be getting involved in silly stuff thatll go nowhere. If its going down this road Id wager Rangers have already though long and hard about what the situation is and the risks of challenging it.

Bring it on.
 

norm1890

Well-Known Member
That is a shockingly low amount. I cannot fathom why Doncaster would agree that. Do the clubs not get to vote on these deals?
 

CajunBear

Well-Known Member
So do the likes of Dundee FC get the same money as Rangers FC for a piece of their shirt?
Because the bellend that is Doncaster negotiated the deal?
Well it's no wonder Rangers aren't happy.
Get that lot to fk out our game before they drag us further into the abyss.

For a league sponsor I have no issue with each team getting the same slice of the deal, but when you look at the figures involved it’s ridiculous. For example, the Vanarama conference sponsorship deal is $4mil over 3 years, not a kick in the arse off our sponsorship for the top flight
 

blue genes

Well-Known Member
Looks like we are not letting murduch McLennan, dhungcaster and liewell out of our sights after the farce last summer. They probably hoping it would all just go away so they could go back to status quo!
I would be delighted if the club had found a hole in the agreement that allows us to ignore this deal. It would simply highlight the poverty of business acumen in the SPFL executive.
 

bigy

Well-Known Member
I imagine the branding is an issue as others have said. The club would expect to promote the league or competition on the sleeve, but to have the sponsor so prominent is unusual.

You then have two issues.

Firstly the fact that the league sponsor is in competition with a club sponsor/partner (ie - cinch v Parks). It also makes finding a new sponsor in the motor industry harder as who is going to do that with a competitor there? Or, for example, if it was Audi or Toyota would they see cinch as devaluing their brand?

Secondly the value of sponsorship. I don’t know the figures, but if Tomket (for example) are paying £250k a year for sleeve sponsorship and stadium advertising. And say Seko are paying £350k for back of shirt. How can the club justify those figures if cinch are getting sleeve sponsorship and interview board sponsorship for less than £100k?
 

Sasa5Papac

Well-Known Member
Probably boils down to whether or not the SPFL have the right to sell advertising space on our jerseys, space we could sell ourselves for more.

I would imagine that this would be a simple fact to establish, and would be surprised if we challenged this without doing our homework.

I am sure that the smaller clubs would be delighted by the Cinch money as it is likely more that they could achieve individually, but the larger clubs, I.e. us and maybe them, could earn more individually.

Interesting to see how this works out.

I would imagine us and them as a two would attract more than 1.6 a season for what they are selling.
 
Top