SFA lost appeal judgement today on interim interdict gained by Parks of Hamilton in August

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
I would be amazed if the SPFL press ahead with the arbitration now.
The interesting part of their argument was that Park’s is not a member of the SFA.
My reading of that is that they know they could threaten Rangers with non-compliance sanctions.
They could also force Rangers to participate in proceedings with non-disclosure rules.
But they cannot use either of those tools against Park’s.
In other words, their usual bullying tactics would be completely ineffective.
I think they will not want to continue as they could not risk their dodgy dealings being revealed publicly.
I suspect that McLennan is behind the dodgy deal and will be, in some guise or other, a recipient of some of the £500k ‘commission’.
The guy from cinch allegedly worked for Shifty (McLennan) McGifty, famous for his ‘I hate those orange bastards’ quote!!
The main issue here for me is that at no time have Parks or Rangers suggested they will not participate in finding a solution. The track record over the Ladbrokes contract surely sets a precedent here Rangers, the SPFL and the two companies came to an agreement to everyone’s satisfaction. As far as I can see neither Rangers nor Douglas Park are refusing to try to sort something out. Neither have Cinch said anything to that effect.

Seems to be that this a total cluster fu(k by the SFA abs the SPFL to try to crush Rangers. Hard to see why they thought that was a good idea or that they would get away with it.
 

htws

Active Member
See post 95.
We will probably be lucky to get 70% of what we have paid and it may even be as low as 50%.
It is the same for Parks.
Basically, even when you win in a lawsuit, you lose.
Interesting, I never realized that was how these costs are broken down.
 

The SM™ Banhammer

Taking blame for all!
Staff member
Bearing in mind the costs will be significant, and they'll have to be paid for somehow, I suspect that the yahoos who brought the case in the first place will try to target cost-cutting with the maximum damage so they can blame us.

Complimentary tickets on international flights. Nope.

Freebies and spending cuts at dinners or at meetings. Nope.

Prize money for Challenge Cup this/next season and League Cup sections next year. That'll do.

Cue Sportsound to Scottish Sun telling us of how the money had to be paid with necessary cuts and if Airdrie/East Fife face going out of business, or St Mirren/Livi have to axe a youth team, that'll do.

Me? A cynic? If Porteous the psychotic thug can be a victim because it's Rangers fans criticising him, or abused men can be denied justice for decades because it's Rangers fans wanting ("glorifying") it, I think it's fair to expect some revenge tactics. We'll wait and see...
 

stonewall Jackson

Well-Known Member
“Hello, Mr Bisgrove, this is cinch here, how much to sponsor the famous Glasgow Rangers?”

“That’ll be £5 million per season son, the going rate for a premier club.”

“Sounds great, I’ll ring you back”



“Hello , Mr Dungcaster, this is cinch here, how much to sponsor the whole of Scottish football, including the Famous?”

“Er, £1.8 million per sesson”

:))
Correct up to the call to Doncaster in which he replied “I’ll get someone else to get back to you”
 

Rusty Shackleford

Well-Known Member
I can’t find anything on google strangely. He had a touchline ban or something which celtc took to court and the SFA caved because they said they didn’t have money to fight it.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/12941685.amp

Lennon got two 4-match bans in quick succession. SFA said they should be done consecutively (8 games) tims challenged this saying that they should be concurrent meaning he only served 5 games after the SFA caved

‘The statement added: "Given the increasingly high stakes in football and the millions of pounds clubs are competing for in Europe, rules written by administrators to govern member clubs of the Scottish FA are being challenged on legal grounds.
"This is creating a situation where substantial sums are being invested in legal fees at a time when the game simply cannot afford it." ‘
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/12941685.amp

Lennon got two 4-match bans in quick succession. SFA said they should be done consecutively (8 games) tims challenged this saying that they should be concurrent meaning he only served 5 games after the SFA caved

‘The statement added: "Given the increasingly high stakes in football and the millions of pounds clubs are competing for in Europe, rules written by administrators to govern member clubs of the Scottish FA are being challenged on legal grounds.
"This is creating a situation where substantial sums are being invested in legal fees at a time when the game simply cannot afford it." ‘
Thanks mate. My memory is terrible but I knew it wasn’t a dream!
 

Chocolateleftfoot

Well-Known Member
Parks need to be included, it's so basic it's unbelievable the SFA/SPFL cabal are still trying to get out of it.

If they are not included then you can end up in a situation where the arbitration rules against Rangers and they are ordered to display Cinch logos etc. Parks then goes to the Court of Session and gets an interdict to enforce their contract and stop Rangers displaying logos etc. So you end up with two procedures going on that may come to opposing conclusions. That is precisely why the SFA's own rulebook states that all parties to the dispute are able to participate in the process, that way you have one process with all views represented and then one conslusion.
Yeah, sorry, I meant the need for the SFA to exclude him.
 

Corkinator

Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m a bit stupid by why would an impartial arbitration body (sfa) wish to exclude one of the parties from any arbitration process. If indeed they are impartial. If not, why are they involved and why isn’t the press asking questions about this??……oh…….wait……
 

nemessis

Well-Known Member
I would be amazed if the SPFL press ahead with the arbitration now.
The interesting part of their argument was that Park’s is not a member of the SFA.
My reading of that is that they know they could threaten Rangers with non-compliance sanctions.
They could also force Rangers to participate in proceedings with non-disclosure rules.
But they cannot use either of those tools against Park’s.
In other words, their usual bullying tactics would be completely ineffective.
I think they will not want to continue as they could not risk their dodgy dealings being revealed publicly.
I suspect that McLennan is behind the dodgy deal and will be, in some guise or other, a recipient of some of the £500k ‘commission’.
The guy from cinch allegedly worked for Shifty (McLennan) McGifty, famous for his ‘I hate those orange bastards’ quote!!
I cannae stand the ba$tards, was the quote he never mentioned OB but a wider span of all Rangers supporters etc.
 

Virgil Hilts

Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m a bit stupid by why would an impartial arbitration body (sfa) wish to exclude one of the parties from any arbitration process. If indeed they are impartial. If not, why are they involved and why isn’t the press asking questions about this??……oh…….wait……

Because the governing bodies of Scottish football are about as straight as the backroads to Shotts.
 

rupertdabear

Well-Known Member
Outrageous that the SFA took such a hostile stance where they are supposed to be a mediator. Heads should roll for this.
Just what i was thinking too.This was the spfl's fight ,not the SFA.
SFA were only to be an arbitrator and should have been neutral but pretty clear which camp they were in.
Well one in the same anyhow so no surprise .
I hope Mr Parks fees were heavy :))
 

o7o

Well-Known Member
SPFL’s lawyer is Lord Keen of Elie QC.

That's the former Lord Advocate who made a total arse of the Charles Green prosecution and who was in Sturgeon's pocket during the Salmond enquiry.

Talk about a nest of vipers.
He failed to turn up!
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
Main point was that the judge got his interpretation of the SFA rules wrong - three appeal judges sitting in the highest court in Scotland rejected that in the Court of Appeal.

This stems from arbitration. When it goes to SFA they should note to any and all interested parties. They argued that was wrong.

This was granted to Parks in August.

The SFA represented by their third QC in this series of hearings. The SPFL QC did not appear, Parks and Rangers were represented by QCs.

There is still to be a substantive hearing on the issues covered in the interdict. But that may not happen if the SFA walk away from the case.

Presumably the SFA will pick up the costs.
 

Square it!

Well-Known Member
To me Gary Borland Q.C.‘s comments may be interpreted as the SFA and SPFL saying
“ look, Rangers is a member Club so we can use the rules of the Association to kick shit out of them and they canny dae anything about it, so gonae no‘ let Parks play, because we canny bully them wi’ the rules”.
I might be wrong in that interpretation.
The queens English might help?
 

o7o

Well-Known Member
That my thought as well. While we think they have to go by the laws of the land, they don’t. The SFA can do what they want because they just threaten to expel us if we take a governing body to court.
They've taken us to court, have they not?
 

o7o

Well-Known Member
Why are people mentioning cinch getting free publicity? They will be raging they can't get their name on the most successful clubs top.

Also no Rangers fan is going to use Cinch tbh.

If Cinch have brains they'll cancel their spfl contract or sue the SPFL
Like Adidas should pull stumps on Nonce FC
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
That my thought as well. While we think they have to go by the laws of the land, they don’t. The SFA can do what they want because they just threaten to expel us if we take a governing body to court.
I’m certain this rule could not be upheld in the courts.
However, UEFA aren’t held to British or Scottish laws and it would be they who’d be the threat here.
 

Mackania

Well-Known Member
Any of the guys who couldn't wait to steam in and bash the club at the start of this had a climb down yet and admitted they might have made an arse of attacking the club based on half a story and lies and half truths reported in our "impartial"(har har) national meeja?
You have people on this very thread thinking this whole thing is a complete waste of time. It is for absolutely everyone except us. Any boot in the balls that brings the cabal closer to the brink of collapse is worth it, financial costs incurred or not.
 

Tim Hunter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
You’re absolutely right.
Winning a costs judgment, invariably means that you end up picking up 30% of your own costs.
How the system works is that costs are what is termed ‘taxed’ and that is the level you recover.
Invariably, that amount can be anything from about 50% to 70% of what you pay to your own lawyers.
Basically, as you said, even when you win in a lawsuit, you lose.
So the SPFL/SFA not only have to pay between 50 and 75% of both Rangers and Parks expenses as well as 100% of their own.
This money is resources that would otherwise be distributed to Scottish football clubs.
Just how much are other clubs willing to subsidise the continual persecution of Rangers?
Unfortunately it appears go be that any price is worth paying to get it up the DOBs.
This is simply madness.
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
I reckon. SFA in the wrong. 8 million well not spent.
Got no issue with Cinch pulling out and would not blame them. No cinch on the Jersey or behind the gaffer at press conferences is a massive loss to their investment. The other clubs missing out on a well needed sponsor windfall is also nice, I hate all other clubs and it might also stir them to actually take action against the governing body
 

The paisley loyal

Well-Known Member
The fact that the SFA even let it get this far is a joke. They put their idea up, we said "this isn't gonna work for us", the SFA rather than trying to resolve the matter and come to an agreement just went full clueless.
That's the way the SFA, have operated for years. They do what they want, and hope anyone who opposes their will, backs down. Usually with a thinly veiled threat of a monetary judgement against them, ie holding back league payments. They bully, and coerce, the weaker clubs, knowing that the club cannot afford to loose, or wait for money. This doesn't work with the stronger clubs, when we had our troubles, there was only one club that could have stood up to the SFA. That didn't happen, because that club was afforded every advantage going by the SFA. Their chief executive was even allowed too accompany the SPFL,s chief bottle washer, when he was doing the TV deal for the league. The SFA, allowed that club to verify every aspect of Scottish football. This meant there would be no problems getting their deals sanctioned. It's a bit different now that we are back, and are more than capable of standing up to them. The so called smaller clubs see this, and are again asking the SPFL, SFA, to explain the reasoning behind the decisions that they make. They do not like it, but long may it continue. The SPFL, still have not explained why their chief executive, who is purported to earn upwards of £300,000 a year, to find and secure sponsors for the league, has gone out and hired another company, to get the league sponsored. He then paid this company, half a million pounds for doing it. This was the job that he was supposed to be doing. What is flat head being paid for then. He is able to move from one catastrophe, to the next, wearing his suit of teflon, as nothing seems to stick. It's easy money if you can get it, all you need is a brass neck, and no scruples.
 

Tim Hunter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/12941685.amp

Lennon got two 4-match bans in quick succession. SFA said they should be done consecutively (8 games) tims challenged this saying that they should be concurrent meaning he only served 5 games after the SFA caved

‘The statement added: "Given the increasingly high stakes in football and the millions of pounds clubs are competing for in Europe, rules written by administrators to govern member clubs of the Scottish FA are being challenged on legal grounds.
"This is creating a situation where substantial sums are being invested in legal fees at a time when the game simply cannot afford it." ‘
This was when the pink QC was providing pro bono services on behalf of CSA FC. The same QC who was found broon breid an a hotel in Pakistan. Surrounded by empty alcohol containers, drug paraphenalia, and his penis covered in someones faeces. All completely allegedly of course.
 

Bluebear72

Well-Known Member
The queens English might help?
The SFA/SPFL didnt intend to use the rules to bully or %^*& Rangers over but to ignore the rules and then seek to cover up their wrong doing by refusing to make public the details of the “hearing” releasing only the outcome of their “deliberations”
Now that Parks of Hamilton are confirmed as a party to the proceedings and not bound by the SFA rule prohibiting member clubs from seeking redress of any grievance in the courts, then the detail of any carve up would be in the public domain if Parks sought a judicial review.
Makes it pretty difficult to cover up any misapplication of the rules
 

waldo 1160

Well-Known Member
Why are people mentioning cinch getting free publicity? They will be raging they can't get their name on the most successful clubs top.

Also no Rangers fan is going to use Cinch tbh.

If Cinch have brains they'll cancel their spfl contract or sue the SPFL
They are getting free publicity through this and they have shirt branding in every single match played and televised. Only one team opposed to it, and will always play against a cinch branded shirt....ofcourse.
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Any of the guys who couldn't wait to steam in and bash the club at the start of this had a climb down yet and admitted they might have made an arse of attacking the club based on half a story and lies and half truths reported in our "impartial"(har har) national meeja?
Of course not. They’re just waiting to be angry at Rangers and say I told you so.
 

two2tango

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
So the SPFL/SFA not only have to pay between 50 and 75% of both Rangers and Parks expenses as well as 100% of their own.
This money is resources that would otherwise be distributed to Scottish football clubs.
Just how much are other clubs willing to subsidise the continual persecution of Rangers?
Unfortunately it appears go be that any price is worth paying to get it up the DOBs.
This is simply madness.
The other clubs don’t get a say it’s Celtic fans with blazers ensuring it costs rangers

Plain as day

The other clubs should be raging at them spending their money on ghost chases
 
Top