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

Doncaster MacLennan and McKenzie due to their hatred of Rangers have ignored the issue Rangers flagged Pre contract

Sums up the incompetence from Doncaster and Co

Also trying to hide the actual deal broker and the £500k costs to bring the deal to the table

The question from Stewart Robertson should have been why are we paying £400k pa to this clown Doncaster who couldn’t close a door never mind a lucrative sponsorship deal

We had no league sponsor given Steven Gerrard is in the league ffs

Doncaster is a joke
 
dh1963 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Possibly, and he might spin it to sound as if it’s a personal grievance with the cabal and Rangers, which it probably is. We have been waiting for the opportunity for the cabal to %^*& something up and this looks like it. However many of the member clubs don’t give two fucks about Rangers and will only see cash going out the window if cinch cancels the contract.
 
SuperGers07 said:
This might be it this time for Doncaster et al
Click to expand...

If Cinch are able to sue under the terms of their contract it will be the SPFL they'll come after and not Rangers by the look of it. Looks like they will either withdraw or seek a reduction in sponsorship at the very least. Also, where does that leave the whopping commission being paid to a third party?

There doesn't look to be any outcome that will be favourable to the SPFL cabal.

It was only a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
dh1963 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The fucking pizza faced spangle will be furiously typing up a Sectarian Singing In Malmo story as we speak... hope he gets to the end of it before he realises.
 
BlueMeanie said:

​


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.
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
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.”
Click to expand...
beautiful, its part of the long game to rid Scottish football of the triumverate of bhigotry (Maclennan, Mckenzie & Doncaster). Be interested how the daily record help them coordinate their aggressive riposte tomorrow.
 
crookie_bear said:
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.
Click to expand...
They are also scared of speaking out incase they get abuse from the tims for doing so. Robertson said in his RTV interview that clubs have concerns and we are encouraging them to speak out but they won't do it.
 
TNT said:
This is another governance issue.

The good that Doncaster and Maclennan have done for Scottish football could be written on the back of a stamp in a bingo marker.
Click to expand...

there was a comparison of deals between Scotland (with 2 world names in the league) and Sweden
staggering the distance in them
sacking offence in itself
 
crookie_bear said:
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.
Click to expand...
We always are in it alone mate, not one club has the balls to see this for what it is, a deliberate breach of rules by the SPFL, rules which were put in place to protect ALL clubs individual contracts in case scenarios such as the Cinch deal happened, now that it has happened the SPFL just want to ignore their own set of rules.

We will complain alone and fight it alone as we always do, it would be interesting though if some of the sponsors of others clubs (motoring sponsors...if there are any) feel that their deals are being compromised here and tell their clubs to either back us on this or they will pull their sponsorship.
 
If our legal team have done their homework and have the SPFL bang to rights then fantastic. We should ram it down their throats. As for what the rest of Scottish football thinks. Who genuinely cares? We've tried to do right by Scottish football and it has spat in our faces. Instead, they've decided to follow Celtic, the SPFL and SFA - who all despise them with every bone in their bodies and want them all ended. Seems a strange way to work but that is Scottish football. Prefers to hate itself to death.
 
Was getting excited by that and then I remembered about 38 of the 42 clubs will have absolutely no appetite to rock the boat or drain the swamp.

Waste of time but good for us making them look like fuds.

Can't see it ending Doncaster though. Teflon.
 
This could get interesting,presumably we have proof of correspondents of letters informing the clowns of their breach of article 17.
It seems we have them over a barrel,but I've thought that in the past to be disappointed when they've somehow weathered the storm and the status quo has continued.
 
We have seen this countless times. Scottish clubs have zero appetite for change until they are on the wrong side of something and then the majority of those who aren't negatively affected are happy to keep everything as, it happened twice just since covid with unfairly relegating Hearts and Partick Thistle, then there was the fighting between our board and the spfl. This will be spun as us being selfish and pressure put on the club to just accept it or the deal will be ripped up while the buffoons remain in charge.
 
I await a snide article appearing in the Record shortly, probably by Keef saying how Rangers are bad and trying to starve Scottish football of the best deal there has ever been in the universe.
 
Do these guys deliberately go out their way to look like the ultimate stooge crew. It will still be big bad Rangers fault anyway.
 
This is beautiful, love this type of stuff when we hold all the cards. Tightening the screw, so to speak.

Now that Robinson has played this card, Cinch are going to be asking some very difficult questions of the SPL, notably were they aware of this when they signed the deal with them. That could lead to legal recourse for fraud. Excellent! B-D
 
It's brilliant that we have all of this in writing. Before the inevitable "big bad Rangers" stories hit the papers and media outlets, I'm glad that we have came out and laid bare what was said. Kudos to Stewart Robertson and the rest of the board.
Hopefully the idiots running the Scottish game are beginning to realise that their time in charge is coming to an end.
 
dh1963 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No doubt be Rangers lawyers made Doncaster sign the contract or something like that.
 
The SFA are surely capable of sub-contracting work what are we paying SPFL for? SFA will still be able to enact decisions for their 20th century terrorist paedophile sympathisers but at least it'll cost the rest of Scottish football less with the incompetent SPFL thrown out.
 
excellent letter. Seems to be well received by the media also. Perhaps there will be a lapdog along soon to portray it in a different light but seems pretty clear cut to me.

Interesting to see Rangers come out on the front foot. The recent H&H podcast was enlightening around the club taking on previous fights we were never going to win. I think this one looks a slam dunk but then again I thought this the last time Dungcaster was getting it tight and he squirmed out of it.

Wriggly b*stard
 
You can see the conversation. “Rangers have raised issues about the contract” “who gives a %^*&, we’re wasting their money on getting it set up so %^*& them!” It’s beyond incompetence!
 
A good response from Rangers. Two problems for me though. SPFL don't care if they are in the wrong. They just ignore it and carry on. Very much like sinn fein/ snp government. The other is the contempt for our club throughout scottish football. Rather than support Rangers they are more likely to vote for us to be punished. If they could get away with it we would receive a heavy fine. Five hundred thousand pounds?
 
From what I can see, Rangers don't really need the backing of others here.

It's a contractual issue which affects Rangers. Therefore Rangers are acting on behalf of Rangers - and our sponsorship partners.

Cinch is not the problem.

GV6 (The third party) are not the problem.

The SPFL is the problem. Rangers made them aware - and they went ahead anyway.

GV6 also brokered deals with Grants vodka and Papa John's Pizza for the SPFL.
 
I think there's significance in the wording where he states Rangers were conducting discussions in private - but the SPFL chose to go public

No doubt they're expecting us to be perceived as the bad guys here (nothing new) & that opinion would favour them against us

However if - as seems likely- the legality of article 17 means they acted incorrectly- then presumably there's relatively little the SPFL can do about this - irrespective of our bad guy reputation

It could therefore be just another ploy to show us in a bad light

You have to wonder when all this childish, spiteful, petty & incompetent behaviour from the SPFL will ever end ?

It surely can't go on like this for much longer - can it ?? ( well wait a minute - I forgot where I was for a minute there )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top