Rangers take on SPFL over 8 million sponsorship deal

bigy

Well-Known Member
From the league rules:


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)

G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play- Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.
 

bigy

Well-Known Member
I know it’s slightly different, but did the Tennents Sixes not stop because Tennents were unhappy with Rangers having McEwans Lager as a sponsor. So if Rangers won a rival brand was plastered across media pictures and Tennents didn’t see the value in their sponsorship.

Interestingly, Parks aren’t listed as a partner on the website. Although I’d imagine we would be working on a motoring partner.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
We have a recent history of picking fights that we can't and don't win.

£1.6mil a year is a reflection of the value of Scottish football. Sponsorship of the league will give Cinch exposure in Scotland but it won't increase visibility in the rest of the UK. If we feel that it's too cheap then taking the league to court won't achieve much. If we feel that the league shouldn't be able to dictate that every club displays certain sponsor logos at grounds, in press backdrops and on sleeves then we've complied in the past without argument, so why pick a fight over this particular deal?

If we're going to pick fights with the spfl then they need to be fights we can win. Not because the league sponsor potentially takes sales away from Parks motor group.
 

bobba

Well-Known Member
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?
this wasn't an issue when it was ladbrokes though and we had another gambling company plastered on the front of our jersey
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
From the league rules:


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)

G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play- Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.
I suspect there is a few more rules in their rule book that we are breaking by not complying with their mediocre sponsor deal but the rules are there to be broken as witnessed by the one recently where "38 games shall be played" was changed to gifting their team a title.
 

Alex

Well-Known Member
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

Cinch sponsor all 4 divisions. 42 teams advertising cinch so it’s considerably less than £3.5k per game…
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
I must admit to being surprised at this move by Rangers.
I’m more surprised that it’s got to do with the value of the sponsorship.
Could it be that the challenge is that we’re already in a relationship with another car dealer?
 

Euro Scooter

Well-Known Member
I suspect we are fighting this on the grounds of a pre-existing deal with Tomket for that shirt space, approved by the SPFL.

We need their approval for sponsor's badges and they did not announce the league sponsor until mid June. We may well already have obtained their consent for Tomket.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
A strange thing to pick a fight over - and one that we look unlikely to win given the League rule in post #101.

I doubt it’s anything to do with Park running a car dealership. The rule extract indicates that we can be compelled to wear the sponsors and League logos on one or both sleeves. We may not be happy with that rule but I’m not sure a Court case is the appropriate way to address that. Similarly, the League have appointed Doncaster to negotiate these deals. If anyone is unhappy about what he negotiates then there are means to have him removed from his position; again Court would not seem the appropriate route.

Its a strange one, for sure.
 

NHAMPTON_BEAR

Well-Known Member
Anything that annoys that twat is a good thing for me.
It should never be forgotten how he handled the ending of the season for their 9 3/4 title. It seems the board have not forgotten. Which is great to see.
 

orjan_persson

Well-Known Member
just put me on ignore lads, saves you the hassle.

Won’t comment on the thread again in any case.
car-with-rylan.png
 

Billiericky

Well-Known Member
I suspect it will cost Rangers more to have the logo applied to the top than it will receive in sponsorship money.
 

Coplandbear

Well-Known Member
£1.6m per year. 42 clubs.

£400k to Doncaster alone.
Think I say his every year but how on earth he has remained in his position after the never ending shambles which he has over seen personally in my view is staggering.

Yes he has his main dubious backers but he needs to go immediately same with MacLennan what does he actually do behind the scenes ? Even McClusky that's the main striking block the club have to go for.
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
I thought it was strange that Cinch branding was plastered all over the flag ceremony at Tynecastle, when they didn't sponsor it last year.
First thing I noticed was cinch in the middle of the tarts flag.
did last season begin with no sponsor, then glens took over part way through?
if part of the deal of LG sponsor is the badge on sleeves, then that’s what was agreed with the exec and sponsor. Don’t see the argument.
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
I suspect we are fighting this on the grounds of a pre-existing deal with Tomket for that shirt space, approved by the SPFL.

We need their approval for sponsor's badges and they did not announce the league sponsor until mid June. We may well already have obtained their consent for Tomket.
This seems to be the likely reasoning. If the SPFL have given the green light to current sponsor logos in current positions, leading to us selling space and are now trying to force us into something different for potentially far less cash, we have every right to fight it.
 

Coplandbear

Well-Known Member
Honestly all clubs should be taking the SPFL to task for their poor governace of the commercial contracts
Before 55 was delivered everything the SPFL effectively did was to benefit and deliver for one particular club "Them"

They couldn't care less about the state/health of Scottish Football or the commercial contracts.

Problem we have across Scottish Football is the pact some of these clubs/chairman/board members have just look back to when they curtailed the league and gifted them the title in 2020 even 2012 and all the dirty tricks to put us down the leagues.

There is a reason Doncaster still remains in his post each year and gets paid extremely well for it despite continuing to oversee a shambles.

Same can be said for the puppet over at the SFA Ian Maxwell.
 

Porto Loyal

Well-Known Member
Regarding the money, all income the SPFL receive is put into a pot then net is distributed on a descending scale from Champions downwards. (From 13% for Champions down to about 0.18% for bottom of League 2)

This looks like it’s about more than just the sleeve badges as the rules are clear that they can specify a sponsors badge on one or other sleeve.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
Neil Doncaster and the SPFL are useless amateurs. Any contract they have agreed will be full of holes. We've nothing to fear here.
 

Gascoigne8

Well-Known Member
This all feels a bit David Murray that we are being combative because of our chairman’s business interests
 

The_Irrepressibles

Well-Known Member
Isn't it Stewart Robertsons turn to be on the board of the SPFL again this season? Could get interesting.

Also I just seen that the SPFL sold exclusive US rights for at least 85 matches per season to CBS/Paramount. For 4 years too. No mention of the sums involved whatsoever that I can find.

Wonder how much they gave that away for?

Think this is clearly part of a larger growing frustration about underselling our product.
 

Spudgun

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
I’m afraid to say I agree with you on this one.

It’s hard to think of any high profile legal battle that we’ve won.

Our track record in these things is horrendous.
 

RfcIbrox

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
Throw in that us and the scvm are 90% of those games in terms of TV exposure but get same as every other club and we as a club are being sold short.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
From the league rules:


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)

G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play- Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.
It’s pretty ridiculous that the Board should choose not only what we put on our shirt but where we display it. Put it on the inside of the sleeve or armpit.
 

TNT

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Based on the distribution of prize money in 2020 where Celtic got 13.4%, Rangers would get a full £214,400!

That's crazy.

Don't know about the total prize money - incl. TV.

Sheffield United got £90m for finishing bottom of the Premiership.

In 2018, League 1 teams were getting a minimum £728k.
 

Crispy Bacon

Well-Known Member
From the league rules:


Shirts to Bear Logo(s)

G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and Play- Off Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.
It’s not only the shirt. They wanted on the new boards around the stadium too. SPFL is a joke and I think this play by us is a smart one. Many of the clubs who sided with the SPFL may now start to change their tune when they realise they are backing the wrong horse.
 

Batigol

Well-Known Member
Not sure how this will go and hopefully the clubs legal counsel is sound on this one, but I wonder if this is a tactic to get the paltry sums generated in sponsorship for our game more into the public sphere and discussed. Especially if it comes down to a direct comparison between a one team deal that we've struck with the likes of Tomket?
 

fergie1959

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.

You are taking the leagues side.
 

fergie1959

Well-Known Member
We have a recent history of picking fights that we can't and don't win.

£1.6mil a year is a reflection of the value of Scottish football. Sponsorship of the league will give Cinch exposure in Scotland but it won't increase visibility in the rest of the UK. If we feel that it's too cheap then taking the league to court won't achieve much. If we feel that the league shouldn't be able to dictate that every club displays certain sponsor logos at grounds, in press backdrops and on sleeves then we've complied in the past without argument, so why pick a fight over this particular deal?

If we're going to pick fights with the spfl then they need to be fights we can win. Not because the league sponsor potentially takes sales away from Parks motor group.

Aye. Right.
 

Helander

Well-Known Member
You are taking the leagues side.
Said I was done with the thread but I’ll reply to this.

I’m absolutely not taking the leagues side, if it goes to court I hope Rangers wipe the floor with them.

I just don’t think that will happen, there is no precedent for this and our recent track record in court is abysmal.
 

fergie1959

Well-Known Member
Said I was done with the thread but I’ll reply to this.

I’m absolutely not taking the leagues side, if it goes to court I hope Rangers wipe the floor with them.

I just don’t think that will happen, there is no precedent for this and our recent track record in court is abysmal.

Okey Dokey.
 

WilkinsBullet

Well-Known Member
Cue points deductions for every game we don't play ball. Is this really worth the risk with millions of pounds of champions League money available to this season's league winners?
 

GarMckin

Well-Known Member
I suspect we are fighting this on the grounds of a pre-existing deal with Tomket for that shirt space, approved by the SPFL.

We need their approval for sponsor's badges and they did not announce the league sponsor until mid June. We may well already have obtained their consent for Tomket.

The league sponsor is on the opposite sleeve, that’s why it is blank.
 

TB12

Well-Known Member
My understanding from this is that Rangers are refusing to advertise cinch because they have a partnership deal with Parks of Hamilton which offers the same service as cinch and therefore creates a conflict of interest.
Usually when you sign a partnership agreement there is a clause in the contract saying you won't advertise another company who offers the same services, therefor Rangers would be in breach of contract with Parks of Hamilton for advertising cinch.
 

_DON_

Well-Known Member
I’ve noticed people suggesting this has something to do with Park, which I do not believe is the case.

I think this is very much to do with money we would be receiving for that sleeve and stadium advertisement in comparison to what we are currently getting from Tomket Tyres.

I believe Rangers feel as though the value of the Cinch is simply not worth it, and they could do a lot better getting their own sponsorship deal.
 

Latest posts

Top