Senior exec at cinch used to work for MacLennan

Hillheadbear said:
I'm not sure there is a conflict if interest. Relationships play a big part in a great many commercial deals.

For me, given the relationship, the big question is why they needed an intermediary and who is getting a piece of the £500k. As they say, 'follow the money'..
Click to expand...
You can also understand the reluctance of Rangers to provide details of their deal with Parks given the potential flow of information both ways.
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
Why on earth did Rangers, before-hand, agree to abide by the ruling no matter the outcome? any sort of basic due diligence by our lawyers/directors would have surely thrown this up?

Why agree to abide by a corrupt organisations request, during a corrupt process in a corrupt court of law?

Why not just stand our ground if our contractual obligations were watertight - which is what we were told.
Click to expand...
I think that the arbitration process dictates acceptance on all parties and there is not an option other than to accept the outcome.
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
Why on earth did Rangers, before-hand, agree to abide by the ruling no matter the outcome? any sort of basic due diligence by our lawyers/directors would have surely thrown this up?

Why agree to abide by a corrupt organisations request, during a corrupt process in a corrupt court of law?

Why not just stand our ground if our contractual obligations were watertight - which is what we were told.
Click to expand...
There is no option for Rangers it is part of the rules.
Parks on the other hand are not bound by SFA/SFPL rules so following the planned stitch up Parks can go to Court whereas Rangers cannot.
This is exactly why the SFPL and SFA are fighting tooth and nail to exclude Parks from the process.
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
Don't enter into it then (arbitration).

Just stand your ground if it's watertight and say see you in court, where you'll lose.
Click to expand...
Don’t think that’s an option as legal action within the game prevents entry into European football.

this is why we are so keen on Parks being involved as they would be able to take legal action if Rangers are forced to break the contract with them. It’s also why both the SPFL and SFA are so keen to exclude them from the process.
 
Snakehips said:
3rd party was: https://www.sportcollective.com/#

Their background seems to check out ok as far as I can tell. Can’t see a reason why they would have been needed though, in light of the revelation that MacLennan has previously worked with the cinch CEO and could have brought them on board himself.

Our board will know exactly what has happened throughout, and I think we need to trust them on this.
Click to expand...
Look at the names of the directors of that company
 
Don't see what the problem is here.
Guy asks someone he used to work with if they fancy sponsoring his new company's product.
 
Hillheadbear said:
I'm not sure there is a conflict if interest. Relationships play a big part in a great many commercial deals.

For me, given the relationship, the big question is why they needed an intermediary and who is getting a piece of the £500k. As they say, 'follow the money'..
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I read the story and thought top executives will cross paths all the time. The finders fee for a company actively scouring the football world for deals remains the dodgy aspect of this in my opinion.
 

The Times - Saturday, 25th September 2021.​


Cinch executive worked for Scots football chairman​


Robert Bridge, right, was pictured with Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, at the unveiling of the partnership

Robert Bridge, right, was pictured with Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, at the unveiling of the partnership
JOHN PHILLIPS/GETTY IMAGES

A senior executive at an online car dealership involved in a sponsorship row between Rangers and Scotland’s football chiefs used to work for the chairman of the Scottish league.

Robert Bridge was hired as the chief customer officer at Telegraph Media Group (TMG) in 2016 and reported directly to Murdoch MacLennan while he was running the business.

MacLennan now chairs the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). A five-year, £8 million package with Cinch, a car sales business, was announced by the SPFL in June.

Bridge was pictured with Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, at the unveiling of the partnership. There was embarrassment the following month as Rangers, the Premiership champions, said they could not comply with the arrangements as the club felt it broke the SPFL’s rules. Those state the rules do not need to be followed “if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned”.

Rangers also said they had pointed this out before the SPFL signed the sponsorship contact. Rangers are refusing to allow Cinch branding on team shirts or on advertising boards.

Douglas Park, chairman of Rangers, owns Park’s of Hamilton, one of the largest privately owned motor dealership groups in Scotland. He believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his company and Rangers.

Concerns have also been raised an external agency would receive a fee of £500,000 for brokering the Cinch deal.

MacLennan, who it is understood played no part in the commercial negotiations with Cinch, wrote to the other 41 SPFL clubs expressing his annoyance with the situation.

Park won a legal ruling stopping arbitration proceedings to resolve the situation and which instead sees the dispute being heard in the courts.
Earlier this week it was suggested by Lord Keen of Elie QC that Cinch approached Rangers to discuss potential commercial opportunities prior to announcing the SPFL deal.

Rangers denied negotiations had taken place which could have led to Ibrox being renamed but acknowledged there had been contact.

Rangers previously raised concerns about MacLennan having a conflict of interest in his SPFL position as he was the chairman of Independent News and Media. At the time that company included Dermot Desmond, Celtic’s largest shareholder, and Denis O’Brien, another Celtic shareholder, among its investors.

MacLennan, 72, stepped down as the TMG chief executive in June 2017 but remained deputy chairman. He became chairman of the SPFL in July 2017.

Bridge had worked at Yahoo before he joined TMG in the spring of 2016. At the time of the appointment it was announced he would be reporting directly to MacLennan who said: “Robert Bridge will have a crucial role in developing and offering new products to the customers who lie at the heart of our business.

“I am delighted he will be joining our senior team.”

After a brief spell with a maker of children’s cosmetics Bridge joined Cinch in January this year as its chief customer officer.

The SPFL, Cinch and Rangers all declined to comment. It is understood the Rangers hierarchy still have doubts over the governance arrangements at the SPFL.
Earlier this week it was suggested by Lord Keen of Elie QC that Cinch approached Rangers to discuss potential commercial opportunities prior to announcing the SPFL deal.

Rangers denied negotiations had taken place which could have led to Ibrox being renamed but acknowledged there had been contact.

Rangers previously raised concerns about MacLennan having a conflict of interest in his SPFL position as he was the chairman of Independent News and Media. At the time that company included Dermot Desmond, Celtic’s largest shareholder, and Denis O’Brien, another Celtic shareholder, among its investors.

MacLennan, 72, stepped down as the TMG chief executive in June 2017 but remained deputy chairman. He became chairman of the SPFL in July 2017.

Bridge had worked at Yahoo before he joined TMG in the spring of 2016. At the time of the appointment it was announced he would be reporting directly to MacLennan who said: “Robert Bridge will have a crucial role in developing and offering new products to the customers who lie at the heart of our business.
“I am delighted he will be joining our senior team.”

After a brief spell with a maker of children’s cosmetics Bridge joined Cinch in January this year as its chief customer officer.

The SPFL, Cinch and Rangers all declined to comment. It is understood the Rangers hierarchy still have doubts over the governance arrangements at the SPFL.
 
Snakehips said:
3rd party was: https://www.sportcollective.com/#

Their background seems to check out ok as far as I can tell. Can’t see a reason why they would have been needed though, in light of the revelation that MacLennan has previously worked with the cinch CEO and could have brought them on board himself.

Our board will know exactly what has happened throughout, and I think we need to trust them on this.
Click to expand...
If you read the sportcollective web site it states the SPFL sponsorship was delivered by a partnership sportcollective GV6

the chief exec of GV6 is Steve Maddren was Brand Manager at Associated Newspapers when McLennan was MD
 
"MacLennan, who it is understood played no part in the commercial negotiations with Cinch, wrote to the other 41 SPFL clubs expressing his annoyance with the situation."

Yes but he sure as hell knew the Cinch guy, and lo and behold there is a deal wit Cinch. A deal that, by the looks of it, cost Scottish Football £500,000.

Lots of people lining their pockets and Rangers are being made a scapegoat.

It'll be like the Daily Record stuff though. They'll close ranks and doors and it will all go away.
 
Crispy Bacon said:
The web keeps on growin’

it’s like them lucrative government contracts. Imagine what the SPFL could be with someone like Bisgrove involved.

Turkeys christmas etc
Click to expand...
One thing I'm certain of if a guy like him was in charge we wouldn't be short of sponsors and partners ffs man :))
 
So you had someone who worked for cinch previously yet you paid half a mil for someone to broker the deal

Corrupt to the core...
 
Yorkshire Blue said:
If you read the sportcollective web site it states the SPFL sponsorship was delivered by a partnership sportcollective GV6

the chief exec of GV6 is Steve Maddren was Brand Manager at Associated Newspapers when McLennan was MD
Click to expand...

Nothing unusual in using someone known to you for negotiations but half a million when you also know the party you are negotiating with seems....totally legit honest!

It has the look of 3 pals sitting round s table and somehow £500k has changed hands
 
Coza said:
Agree with this. I read the story and thought top executives will cross paths all the time. The finders fee for a company actively scouring the football world for deals remains the dodgy aspect of this in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Could there be a difference between crossing paths and directly reporting / hired by the other party though Coza ? Bridges hasnt had many employers and it’s not working at the Local Sainsbury that’s being highlighted here .
 
Crispy Bacon said:
The web keeps on growin’

it’s like them lucrative government contracts. Imagine what the SPFL could be with someone like Bisgrove involved.

Turkeys christmas etc
Click to expand...
When national government gets away with blatant corruption, others follow their example. There will be a day of reckoning yet and all their walls will come tumbling down.
 
GazzaG said:
So why did 500 grand go to a 3rd party if it was as simple as you suggest?
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
But the OP is only about 2 people previously working together.
Like you say the 500k stinks.
The fact they know each other means there should have been no need for a 3rd party being involved or was the 3rd party only introduced to prevent the direct link.
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
I know what you are saying but surely if our position is watertight like we claimed, you can take it to court outside of the footballing Kangeroo process regards their rules. I know it's frowned upon but who cares?
Click to expand...
Uefa would come down hard on a club going to court as they enjoy the dictatorship that they currently run
Silence is easily bought as we know to well here
Football authorities aren't chock a blok with the likes of Lawell and Delaney for the good of the game
 
SecondBestIsNothing said:
Which raises the question, why did we need to pay a middle-man to secure this deal, if there were executives with a history of working together? Surely the two parties could’ve secured this deal themselves?
Click to expand...
Wonder if one of the middlemen receiving a cut had initials M McL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top