Rangers chief Stewart Robertson writes to chairmen as he asks for support in bitter row with SPFL bosses over cinch deal

[BlueMeanie]

​

RANGERS have today hit back at the SPFL in a stinging letter sent to Scotland’s clubs.
The Ibrox club are at war with league chiefs over their £8million sponsorship with online car sales firm cinch.

2
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
Gers claim the £1.6m-a-year agreement clashes with the deal they have in place with chairman Douglas Park’s motor company.
And their lawyers argue rule I7 of the SPFL’s own rulebook allows them to snub the agreement.
That saw SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan email clubs earlier this week expressing ‘disappointment’ in Rangers over their stance.
He urged clubs to back under-fire SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster as he fights for his job.

But there is a growing fear that cinch could now walk away from the five-year deal.
And now Gers Managing Director Stewart Robertson has hit back in a letter penned to clubs.
Crucially he claims Rangers made it clear to the SPFL there was an issue BEFORE the deal was signed.
Robertson has written: “We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.
“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.
“We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.
“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:

• Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?
• Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?
• Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?
• It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game. Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director?

“I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson
Managing Director.”

 

[Main Stand]

He’s weak, or something like that.

 

[HSMS]

So we told them before they signed the deal and they ignored it anyway? Absolutely ridiculous. I would say that Doncaster needs to go but the time for that is long past, he must have some serious dirt on folk as he appears to be bulletproof.

 

[bigy]

I had questioned the club's stance, but that's perfectly clear and shows the utter incompetence being demonstrated on a regular basis by those running the SPFL.

 

[Gibraltar Loyal]

Looks like lile we have them bang to rights

 

[Coplandbear]

We have these bastards by the balls now we know why MacLennan was rolled out to the media this is all to save face and keep Doncaster in a job.

Caught bang to rights and they don't like it.

Keep at it Rangers.

 

[Art Corvelay]

He won't get "support" no matter how correct or articulate he may be about the matter.

We seen this with the independent investigation.

Let the lawyers deal with it.

 

[sw26]

Seems like fair comments on the face of it.

The last bullet point in particular is a cracker, and exactly the question that all member clubs should be demanding an answer to.

Why are we paying Doncaster what we are when we are sub-contracting contract negotiations to someone else at exorbitant cost?

 

[JD1872]

Excellent, very clear we are right on this one

 

[ForGodForCountryForever]

Superbly conducted contact by Rangers, lets see the Clowns respond now.

 

[Virgil Hilts]

go for the jugular Rangers.

 

[Pennine Walk]

Be relentless Rangers.
Nail MacLennan and Doncaster to the floor.

 

[El Bufalo]

SPFL have fucked it.

 

[Virgil Hilts]

Would the directors concerned ( MacLennan & Doncaster I assume ) be personally liable if they’ve made a cuńt of this?

 

[shinyscot]

Very succinctly put, be interesting to see how the spfl spin this. The fact we told them that this was an issue and they ignored this should be enough to see Doncaster and shifty mcgifty sacked

 

[xd182]

Oh no, I sense another spam folder scenario from the SPFL...

 

[Macdonsj]

for the establishment club, we seem to get ignored and slighted an awful lot

"cannot fufil a lot of the deal due to rule 17"
"wheres my pen"

 

[Blues and Royals]

This nails the SPFL to the floor, but what will happen is that the corrupt cabal will appeal to clubs that we must be punished because it’s those Rangers bastards again, and what kind of punishment would you like us to dish out to them as we can change the rules to suit whatever agenda we like.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

​

RANGERS have today hit back at the SPFL in a stinging letter sent to Scotland’s clubs.
The Ibrox club are at war with league chiefs over their £8million sponsorship with online car sales firm cinch.

2
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
Gers claim the £1.6m-a-year agreement clashes with the deal they have in place with chairman Douglas Park’s motor company.
And their lawyers argue rule I7 of the SPFL’s own rulebook allows them to snub the agreement.
That saw SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan email clubs earlier this week expressing ‘disappointment’ in Rangers over their stance.
He urged clubs to back under-fire SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster as he fights for his job.

But there is a growing fear that cinch could now walk away from the five-year deal.
And now Gers Managing Director Stewart Robertson has hit back in a letter penned to clubs.
Crucially he claims Rangers made it clear to the SPFL there was an issue BEFORE the deal was signed.
Robertson has written: “We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.
“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.
“We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.
“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:

• Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?
• Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?
• Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?
• It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game. Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director?

“I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson
Managing Director.”

Great response. Nice & short but very clear & once again exposes the corrupt & arrogant mindset of the SPFL.

Not fit for purpose.

 

[crookie_bear]

He won't get "support" no matter how correct or articulate he may be about the matter.

We seen this with the independent investigation.

Let the lawyers deal with it.

It's money to the smaller clubs no matter how significant the amount is or how the deal was done . They really don't care. We are in this alone.

 

[sir_walter_smith]

Delicious

 

[Killer Bob]

It makes the Murdoch MacLennan communications last week look incredibly ill judged. What a surprise.

 

[Coplandbear]

Would the directors concerned ( MacLennan & Doncaster I assume ) be personally liable if they’ve made a cuńt of this?

Doncaster definitely that's why the elusive MacLennan came out of the shadows to publicly back him these charlatans are in this together no doubt about it.

 

[TN8]

He’s weak, or something like that.

Bending over and taking it.

 

[sir_walter_smith]

It's money to the smaller clubs no matter how significant the amount is or how the deal was done . They really don't care. We are in this alone.

We'll soon find out but the SPFL have made a few enemies since Covid hit. I doubt we are in this alone.

 

[jaws73]

SPFL have fucked it.

I reckon the Rangers Board knew it was only a matter of time before the incompetents were hoist by their own petard. Perhaps it will happen sooner than even they thought but will others take the opportunity to support us?

Cinch withdrawing from the deal would be of the SPFL Board's own making (Rangers look to be in the right).

 

[Commentator]

Much better, get on the front foot and, within the rules, be aggressive.

 

[stein and johnston]

SPFL have fucked it.

Again…

 

[GlasgowSud]

Enough rope to hang themselves.

 

[YoungGer97]

Murdoch MacLennan made to look like the senile auld fanny that he is

INJECT

 

[dcbear]

The last bullet point is a real kick in the nads for the SPFL executive.

 

[The Pontiac Bandit]

Astounds me that these clubs can support such an inept board.

They are more interested in keeping up the Rangers bad persona than try to actually drive the game forward.

 

[Simply a Bear]

Get MacLennan and Doncaster out, now. As for the other clubs, they'll just sit back and let Rangers take the flak again. No backbone or desire to change the game for the better, just apathy and acceptance of corruption and skullduggery.

 

[dh1963]

Doncaster will be getting Keith Jackson to write a story tomorrow morning about Rangers trying to bankrupt Scottish football. It might even have a quote from an unnamed SPFL club chairman agreeing with that.

 

[Blues and Royals]

Very succinctly put, be interesting to see how the spfl spin this. The fact we told them that this was an issue and they ignored this should be enough to see Doncaster and shifty mcgifty sacked

They will release an already prepared statement before close of play tonight rubbishing us.
It’s what Yahoos and their Nationalist lackeys do.

 

[Wickbear]

Corrupt to the core, get those bastards voted out.

 

[dynamo_rosco]

Head shot.

 

[The Golden God]

Stewart Roberton coming in with a driver just swinging it about

 

[Hurricane Run]

Looks like lile we have them bang to rights

Doesnt usually make much difference in this cesspit though. No doubt the next call will be, asking us to accept the deal in the best interests of the league, and no one will support us. Seen this movie too many times.

 

[Its-Sebo]

Murdoch MacLennan made to look like the senile auld fanny that he is

INJECT

The problem is, this is far from the first time but they're fücking immune. The other SPFL clubs know this mob are a bunch of chancers but would rather keep their mouth shut than be seen siding with us.

 

[Bknowe]

I think the SPFL board, emboldened by the shenanigans they got away with last year just thought they could do the same again.

Make it all about big bad Rangers and the other clubs would fall into line behind them. Looks like their arrogance has gotten the better of them.

 

[Normandy]

Fantastic letter. Succinct and really emphasises the incompetence of them. Loving it.

 

[MrBearightside]

for the establishment club, we seem to get ignored and slighted an awful lot

"cannot fufil a lot of the deal due to rule 17"
"wheres my pen"

It's I7

As in i7

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

We'll soon find out but the SPFL have made a few enemies since Covid hit. I doubt we are in this alone.

Agree SWS, Tom English implied that more & more clubs are becoming unhappy with their management, or maybe mismanagement.

 

[Arkanoid]

Battle of the speccys, come on Robertson!

 

[Number Six]

Excellent Rangers

 

[Blues and Royals]

The problem is, this is far from the first time but they're fücking immune. The other SPFL clubs know this mob are a bunch of chancers but would rather keep their mouth shut than be seen siding with us.

That is what will happen. They’re just happy to exist and don’t want to rock the boat.

 

[SuperGers07]

This might be it this time for Doncaster et al

 

[StuGers]

The SPFL probably knew this would happen, but thought, %^*& it, another chance to take a pot shot at Rangers.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

It's money to the smaller clubs no matter how significant the amount is or how the deal was done . They really don't care. We are in this alone.

Not sure I agree CB.

If cinch pull out of the deal, it’s not Rangers who created the issue, but SPFL management for ignoring a clear pre contractual communication from a member club.

SPFL have 100% created this, not Rangers.