Rangers take on SPFL over 8 million sponsorship deal

Coplandbear

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.
It's a second rate mediocre used online car dealer it's an embarrassment the whole thing.

I mean they barely have over 2200 followers on Twitter and Rylan Clark does the publicity adverts that just further adds to the embarrassment.

I'm quite happy Rangers are taking a hard stance against it.

Looks like the gloves are off again between us and the SPFL/Doncaster.

Bring it on I say.
 
Last edited:

_DON_

Well-Known Member
It's a second rate mediocre used online car dealer it's an embarrassment.

I mean they barely have over 2200 followers on Twitter and Rylan Clark does the publicity adverts that just further adds to the embarrassment.

I'm quite happy Rangers are taking a hard stance against it.
Yeah, 100%. Parks Motor Group is not a kick in the arse off a billion pound turnover, which is why I don’t think this has anything to do with them. As I said, I think this is very much to do with the deal simply not being worth the money for us in comparison to other deals we have.
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
It's a second rate mediocre used car dealer it's an embarrassment the whole thing.

I mean they barely have over 2200 followers on Twitter and Rylan Clark does the publicity adverts that just further adds to the embarrassment.

I'm quite happy Rangers are taking a hard stance against it.

Looks like the gloves are off again between us and the SPFL/Doncaster.

Bring it on I say.
I don’t know who, but, aren’t Cinch part of a big European company?
 

Fothyman

Well-Known Member
The deal to us is 140k a season for shirt and in stadium sponsorship. We have quite rightly told them to bolt as we'd make far more money ourselves from our own deals.
 

Flying Fullback

Well-Known Member
Think it's fairly common for leagues to have a sponsor that teams have to display. Wouldn't have thought our chances of winning this dispute are great, though possibly the rules are worded badly and we can exploit that. Find it strange that it says specified from time to time by the board. Could we argue that means they only have the right to make us occasionally wear it and not for every game?

"G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and PlayOff 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"

Do hope that we are picking this fight for Rangers interest and not Douglas Parks. Agree the league sponsorship deal is a shit one and am happy for the club to highlight that and Doncaster's poor governship. Not convinced that refusal to display it is the best way to go, but would be happy if I'm wrong and this does help us get better governorship for the league.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
If it's about the money then why didn't we challenge the SPFL on the previous deal with Ladbrokes? Displayed the Ladbrokes SPFL patch on our sleeve but not Cinch?
 

therealmackay

Well-Known Member
The SPFL have some fucking brass neck to think they can force a sponsor on to teams shirts.
Why? Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale bank and others have featured on sleeve patches for years when they have sponsored the leagues with no issues. The only reason there was no sponsor on last year’s was because Dungcaster failed to secure a deal for one.

Unless there is an issue with the contract that was signed, I really can’t see where we have grounds to challenge this as it will be written in to the agreement that every team wears the sponsor’s patch on the sleeves. It may well be that the deal Dungcaster did grossly undervalues the product on offer, but to be honest if we had a problem with how he went about it (and we should have had after the failure of last season and the dodgy vote crap) then we should have raised those concerns last season and called for a vote of no confidence in him then, instead of letting him stay in post and allowing him to sign a crap deal.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
If it's about the money then why didn't we challenge the SPFL on the previous deal with Ladbrokes? Displayed the Ladbrokes SPFL patch on our sleeve but not Cinch?

Because time moves on and we're in a far healthy position. Or are we dictated by decisions of years past?
 

DNA1872

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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.
Said that last night to my boy mate …. Very strange indeed but these tits running our game are completely bonkers
 

Big Buff

Well-Known Member
Do hope that we are picking this fight for Rangers interest and not Douglas Parks. Agree the league sponsorship deal is a shit one and am happy for the club to highlight that and Doncaster's poor governship. Not convinced that refusal to display it is the best way to go, but would be happy if I'm wrong and this does help us get better governorship for the league.
This is my concern. I don’t want Rangers being used as a weapon in a fight between Parks and cinch. And I can’t see why we would object to this otherwise.
 

IH8Everyone

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The issue is the derisory deal that Dungcaster made.

Cinch are owned by Constellation (formally BCA) We Buy Any Car (All privately owned). Its more preferable than a booze or gambling company sponsor.

Currently sponsors of Queens, English cricket and sleeve sponsors of Spurs and no doubt each one of those will have a bigger deal than the SPFL






cG0e0qF.jpg
 
Last edited:

bobba

Well-Known Member
Think there’s maybe something to be said about the actual design of the sleeve patch. I feel like the sponsor is taking up far more prominence in this instance, which has maybe changed the view point
 

Govan36

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.
Interesting that it does not specify the size of the logo.
 

Govan36

Well-Known Member
Firmly behind the but what concerns me is that our legal team made an arse out of the SDI Hummel debacle, so I'm skeptical.
I can understand your point but I would point out that the SDI deal was made during Somers'/Green's time and probably by SDI lawyers for Somers and our legal team were unable to overturn SDI's watertight ridiculous "deal" ?
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Because time moves on and we're in a far healthy position. Or are we dictated by decisions of years past?

Not buying that.

League had no sponsor last year. We didnt raise the issue of shirt sleeve sponsorship. We were back in the top flight under the Ladbrokes deal but didnt challenge it and it was worth less than the Cinch deal is.

This is a strange fight to pick right now.
 

Govan36

Well-Known Member
Not buying that.

League had no sponsor last year. We didnt raise the issue of shirt sleeve sponsorship. We were back in the top flight under the Ladbrokes deal but didnt challenge it and it was worth less than the Cinch deal is.

This is a strange fight to pick right now.
This thread opened with a post containing an article from the Sun. I doubt that the Sun has any direct info coming from inside the club, because it is the Sun ( Scum ). Maybe we on here should seek "clarification" from "the League chiefs" as suggested by the Rangers spokesman ?

"The Sun understands......"

"League chiefs are remaining tight lipped......"
 
Last edited:

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
I wonder how much of the SPFL sh1t sponsor deals even goes to the club. How much is absorbed in the running of the SPFL and the payment of admin costs, property, fat salaries etc.
 

Yosser

Well-Known Member
I hope the club has assessed the legal implications of this before picking this fight. Given the relatively small amount it doesn't really matter if we don't get paid. Does it also include the b team?
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
Not buying that.

League had no sponsor last year. We didnt raise the issue of shirt sleeve sponsorship. We were back in the top flight under the Ladbrokes deal but didnt challenge it and it was worth less than the Cinch deal is.

This is a strange fight to pick right now.

Our commercial activities have been transformed, improving year-to-year. It’s only natural additional revenue streams are looked at.

It’s likely cinch are paying more for one season on Tottenham’s sleeve than the full SPFL contract.

The authorities have shackled Rangers to a 5-year deal. It’s arguable that this period will be the most high-profile in our history.
 

Aveling & Porter

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.
Might be playing devil's advocate here but if this is indeed the case then could it be that the SPFL charlatans specifically went with this cinch deal for this very reason.
I certainly wouldn't put it past them, especially as by all accounts it is a poor deal. Maybe they knew it would create a conflict with our sponsors??
 

Govan36

Well-Known Member
Executive salaries and bonuses and expenses, anyone know how much per annum?

Cinch Sponsorship (best ever allegedly) £1.6 million per annum.

Does it even cover their running costs?


Cinch Premiership
Cinch Championship
Cinch League 1
Cinch League 2
Some more perspective, £1.6M divided by 42 clubs is about £38,000, so Rangers and Celtc gave League 2 a combined total of £40,000 to let the B teams in for 1 season.
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The issue is the derisory deal that Dungcaster made.

Cinch are owned by Constellation (formally BCA) We Buy Any Car (All privately owned). Its more preferably than a booze or gambling company sponsor.

Currently sponsors of Queens, English cricket and sleeve sponsors of Spurs and no doubt each one of those will have a bigger deal than the SPFL






cG0e0qF.jpg
I don’t watch much tennis but I did watch some of Queens a couple of months ago and the colours and branding looked way OTT for tennis. Far too garish imo.
 

Billiericky

Well-Known Member
Some more perspective, £1.6M divided by 42 clubs is about £38,000, so Rangers and Celtc gave League 2 a combined total of £40,000 to let the B teams in for 1 season.

£38,000 divided by 38 games in a season :mad:

edit: And how many free seats do the sponsors get per game? Not to mention hospitality, for £1,000 a game :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Last edited:

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
As long as the argument is watertight, legally, then this is exactly what we should be doing.

Hopefully it results in Doncaster having to walk, if we point blank refuse then cinch will argue breach of contract and likely refuse to pay. We won’t be popular but hopefully gives enough leverage for Doncaster (at least) to have to leave.

I’m sure Douglas Park had someone look over the contract because it’s a rival car sales firm but we could benefit from this.
 

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
I’m hoping this extends to the league flag, the one hearts unfurled had ‘cinch’ right in the middle of it and it was garish.

I could see this coming to a head before flag day, if it’s against them then cinch will be desperate to have their brand in the flag.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Our commercial activities have been transformed, improving year-to-year. It’s only natural additional revenue streams are looked at.

It’s likely cinch are paying more for one season on Tottenham’s sleeve than the full SPFL contract.

The authorities have shackled Rangers to a 5-year deal. It’s arguable that this period will be the most high-profile in our history.

Higher profile than being fundamental to the creation of the first incarnation of the Champions League? Higher profile than a UEFA Cup final?
 

Coatbridge Chancellor

Well-Known Member
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster is under growing pressure to solve Rangers’ sponsor snub.

As Sunsport revealed yesterday Gers refused to wear the logo of commercial partners cinch in their Premiership opener with Livingston.

And the Ibrox side failed to declare a cinch-sponsored man of the match, while the car company’s branding was absent from broadcast interview boards.

And the fallout from those shock actions could spark a bitter new war over Doncaster’s role within the Scottish game.

Cinch have agreed an £8million deal with the SPFL due to run over the next five years and have their rights protected in their regulations.

But Rangers — whose chairman Douglas Park made his fortune in car sales — have blatantly ignored rule G46, which covers logos on shirts.

That rule says that all players should carry the logo of the title sponsors on at least one sleeve.

Gers, whose managing director Stewart Robertson is a member of the SPFL board, claim their lawyers are satisfied they can legitimately refuse to advertise cinch, even though a central deal has been struck on behalf of all 42 clubs.

The online car firm and the SPFL have remained tight-lipped as they plan their next course of action but are understood to be furious at the league champions taking such a commercially aggressive approach.

The league body could hand down sanctions in a bid to force cinch’s name on to the strips and hoardings.

But the Ibrox side are likely to refuse to back down and now Doncaster must react.
 

Itsjoeariboooooooo

Well-Known Member
Rangers well within their rights. Its a huge clash for any motoring / car brand I.e. Tomket Tyres. Most deals prior would be done on the goodwill there would be no competitor or industry brands. Completely dilutes agreements which will be based on 100 percent share of voice
 

devilman

Well-Known Member
They club are right to defend themselves if we're not getting a good deal. Of course I am sure when Cinch spoke to the SPFL having their name slapped on a Rangers kit would have been the absolute highest priority. Therefore both Cinch and SPFL will be up in arms.

However, the deal is genuinely that bad that it's not good business for us and we have a right to contest that. We could have something worth a 100 times what they're giving us.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
Higher profile than being fundamental to the creation of the first incarnation of the Champions League? Higher profile than a UEFA Cup final?

Yes. Football has increased in popularity and coverage since then.

We have global superstar as manager and a young diverse squad playing attractive, competitive football.
 

Steve Snedden

Well-Known Member
Yes. Football has increased in popularity and coverage since then.

We have global superstar as manager and a young diverse squad playing attractive, competitive football.
I understand the strategy up to the point of using it as a weapon to danage the credibility of those in control of the league.

However, although our legal advice must be to reject the validity of the contract and therefore not display any Cinch branding the other side of the argument is that we are in breach of a contract that we give the SPL permission to make via our contractual commitments which are probably covered in something like the articles of association.

I can’t imagine a material breach on our side will be viewed favourably by any court?

I don’t think it is without risk although I have absolutely no direct experience in this area.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Yes. Football has increased in popularity and coverage since then.

We have global superstar as manager and a young diverse squad playing attractive, competitive football.

The SPFL isnt as well regarded as it was in the 90s. People might be watching with curiosity and because of Gerrard's personality but fans on here vastly overestimate how much genuine interest there is in Rangers worldwide. That we love the club means absolutely nothing to folk who don't, They're not going to be watching Rangers v Ross County or the likes.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
I understand the strategy up to the point of using it as a weapon to danage the credibility of those in control of the league.

However, although our legal advice must be to reject the validity of the contract and therefore not display any Cinch branding the other side of the argument is that we are in breach of a contract that we give the SPL permission to make via our contractual commitments which are probably covered in something like the articles of association.

I can’t imagine a material breach on our side will be viewed favourably by any court?

I don’t think it is without risk although I have absolutely no direct experience in this area.

As with the new media strategy, I think we’re querying why the SPFL are able to sell advertising.

If that is the case, then we’re asking for market value (or at least something close).

All speculation on my part but Robertson’s interview points to this - and I can’t imagine Bisgrove isn’t questioning it either.
 

Steve Snedden

Well-Known Member
As with the new media strategy, I think we’re querying why the SPFL are able to sell advertising.

If that is the case, then we’re asking for market value (or at least something close).

All speculation on my part but Robertson’s interview points to this - and I can’t imagine Bisgrove isn’t questioning it either.

Yes, thanks, I get that.

It is the strategy that concerns me though. We’ve unilaterally decided not to implement an SPL sponsorship deal.

I’m guessing because the advice must be that implementation equals tacit acceptance.

I think that might backfire, don’t you?
 
Top