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

Those saying we don't need other clubs to side with us. Is it not true that Doncaster works for the clubs so in order to remove him it would be down to the clubs to sack him??
Even if this goes down the legal route and he is found at fault he will only lose his job if the other clubs grow a set and get rid of him. It's an unbelievable situation to be in, he should've been gone years ago.
 
The solution is for cinch and the spl to buy out douglas parks contract with Rangers It will cost them 1.6 million plus and the league can get nothing
 
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...
Tell the other clubs if cinch pull out, you’ve got nothing?

my opinion , for what it’s worth, it doesn’t involve the other teams re the deal.
Rule 17?
We, or any others with similar deals with what Cinch provide, don’t have to advertise.
Have to prove they are the same/similar.
Could be as we don’t advertise a similar on our shirts, spfl can enforce.
Parks stadium ads means we can’t do similar for Cinch.
Legal men to decide.
 
Timardim said:
they share the same office ( and envelope ) by the look of it
Click to expand...
Part of the cabal and chief Rangers haters

Doncaster played a massive part in our demotion back in 2012 his actions back then along with Stuart Regan should never be forgotten.

Doncaster shouldn't be allowed near our stadium never mind a such a high profile position at the SPFL/SFA.

The man is an absolute scumbag who is kept in his role each year by the same charlatans who despises us.
 
Sounds like SPL had 1 sponsorship offer on the table which appeared reasonable (to them). Knew it conflicted with our current obligations. However went ahead & chanced their arm anyway as there was no other offer on the table & they needed to get something done to save face.

I'm sure the SPL will have taken advice on the legal situation before signing so are willing to take the chance through a legal proceeding. Might end up in a settlement
 
Aveling & Porter said:
Those saying we don't need other clubs to side with us. Is it not true that Doncaster works for the clubs so in order to remove him it would be down to the clubs to sack him??
Even if this goes down the legal route and he is found at fault he will only lose his job if the other clubs grow a set and get rid of him. It's an unbelievable situation to be in, he should've been gone years ago.
Click to expand...
I thought donkey had got a european job
 
Mr MacLennan is Chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) – 45% of whose shares are owned by Desmond and O’Brien. Mr Desmond also owns 35% of Celtic’s shares and Mr O’Brien 13% of the football club.

“It’s clearly ludicrous to claim that there is no business relationship or conflict of interest between Mr MacLennan’s roles. Several stories in the Irish Times concerning the operation of INM put paid to the SPFL’s stance.
 
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...
What a post it really does highlight how Incompetent Liewells Lackys are. Now that Liewells not around so much are the Chairman of other Clubs Less Under the Thumb of the Scum from the East End? It is War now and hopefully the demise of a regime that has been discredited so many times. I believe we gathered a third of Clubs last year, it’s not too far from 33% to 51% let’s hope.
 
Midfield General said:
I think this is a clever way of us finally getting rid of the cabal.As it stands we won't get support from the other clubs as they won't give up the income no matter how meagre it is.
I do wonder if James Bisgrove has a better sponsorship deal for the league up his sleeve, that would be the final nail for Doncaster,McLennan and McKenzie.
Click to expand...
Bisgrove would have had no problems getting a sponsor deal, and tv deal. He is streets ahead of those incompetent and crooked individuals.
 
Midfield General said:
I think this is a clever way of us finally getting rid of the cabal.As it stands we won't get support from the other clubs as they won't give up the income no matter how meagre it is.
I do wonder if James Bisgrove has a better sponsorship deal for the league up his sleeve, that would be the final nail for Doncaster,McLennan and McKenzie.
Click to expand...
As soon as I read Stewart Robertson's response earlier, the first thing that popped into my head was that very thought.

It wouldn't surprise me if we've already got a company waiting in the wings to step in and our next move was to bring a much better sponsorship deal for the SPFL to the table.
 
Amazing letter which seems to answer everything and shows clear as day we have them bang to rights...

Unbelievable that they ignored it all and went ahead with it. The cynic in me thinks there has to be more to this - They can't be THAT stupid and blatant
 
The SPFL, helped by the media, are trying to blame Rangers for this if Cinch pull out.

Any half decent journalist would be asking the SPFL why it’s own rules allow Rangers to do this, why Cinch would pull out if it was fully aware of the SPFL’s rules at the time of signing, and why a “massive” sponsorship seems to hinge on Rangers breaching existing contracts with its own sponsors.

There are plenty of uncomfortable questions for the league which should be asked by the press, but it’s far easier to sit on their collective backsides and blame Rangers. To think they were telling us all about the virtues of an independent press not one week ago.
 
How water tight is our contract with Parks on this matter? The rule says we can ignore the obligations to cinch if they would place us in breach of contract with our Parks deal. Parks is not mentioned at all on our Commercial Partners page. Wondering what kind of language could exist in a deal with Parks that would prevent us from placing a sponsor like cinch on our shirt sleeves.

(BTW, the press have been saying its the Parks deal but same question applied to any other deal).

I hope we come out the winners on this, but we don't have a great track record here.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thing is Grigo, the SPFL cabal adopt the same approach as the SNP when questioned on a topic that all evidence and facts confirm they are in the wrong. Dungcaster cosying up and sitting with the celtc board at the Rangers celtc under 18 game at Hampden, then the subsequent appointment of celtc fan and on record Rangers hater MacLennan.

They stonewall/ignore, change tactic/subject, lie (the email farce and subsequent investigation of themselves carried out by people they hired). The fucking temerity of that old man coming out with that correspondence to the whole of Scottish football is reprehensible.

They are absolute reptiles and it baffles me how other clubs put up with this. Again though, it’s very much the SNP approach, the majority of senior people in our tin pot football clubs seem to have an affinity with celtc (look no further than Mulraney). I’ve mentioned previously the demographic in his club with the majority being of one religion (the appointment of Ferguson was preceded by a litany of ex celtc players or people with a certain religion), I’m convinced Ferguson was appointed to break that up considering his new high profile stance in the game.

I’ve also noticed among numerous teams that are heavily weighted with players of a particular religion (Motherwell & Livingston spring to mind). Are you telling me that a people with 16% of the population should outnumber and are better footballers than those of other religions or is one religion being favoured with opportunity? I’ve not looked at the coaching hierarchy across Scotland but it’s something I need to do. You look at the positions within the SFA, from compliance officer appointments to Malky Mackay, MacLennan et al.

You then look at the fabric of the SNP, the majority of their MSPs and councillors are appointed from one particular religion or affinity to a certain club or cause (free Palestine anyone?).

Personally, I couldn’t give a toss about someone’s religion, it’s when their religion displays unprofessionalism, bias and bigotry that pisses me off.

The majority of Scottish clubs have been sycophantic arse licking bastards interested in their own survival whilst trying to destroy us. I have nothing but contempt for the lot of them and I will never be in their grounds ever again in my life and they will not receive a penny from me.

Rant over and feel better for that. B-D
 
wsb&warmy said:
As soon as I read Stewart Robertson's response earlier, the first thing that popped into my head was that very thought.

It wouldn't surprise me if we've already got a company waiting in the wings to step in and our next move was to bring a much better sponsorship deal for the SPFL to the table.
Click to expand...
And as a consequence generate a vote of no confidence in the cabal.
 
“Divulging the 100k is poor” Aye fkin right, maybe the governing body should be open and transparent and say - this is worth X, we pay Y and Z gets a cut, for everyone to see and decide if it’s a good deal. I’d go the opposite way and NOT divulging the half million they’re giving away is poor. Why is he on 400k a year or whatever if he can’t put a deal together or hire someone on less money who can?
 
Cromwell said:
Thing is Grigo, the SPFL cabal adopt the same approach as the SNP when questioned on a topic that all evidence and facts confirm they are in the wrong. Dungcaster cosying up and sitting with the celtc board at the Rangers celtc under 18 game at Hampden, then the subsequent appointment of celtc fan and on record Rangers hater MacLennan.

They stonewall/ignore, change tactic/subject, lie (the email farce and subsequent investigation of themselves carried out by people they hired). The fucking temerity of that old man coming out with that correspondence to the whole of Scottish football is reprehensible.

They are absolute reptiles and it baffles me how other clubs put up with this. Again though, it’s very much the SNP approach, the majority of senior people in our tin pot football clubs seem to have an affinity with celtc (look no further than Mulraney). I’ve mentioned previously the demographic in his club with the majority being of one religion (the appointment of Ferguson was preceded by a litany of ex celtc players or people with a certain religion), I’m convinced Ferguson was appointed to break that up considering his new high profile stance in the game.

I’ve also noticed among numerous teams that are heavily weighted with players of a particular religion (Motherwell & Livingston spring to mind). Are you telling me that a people with 16% of the population should outnumber and are better footballers than those of other religions or is one religion being favoured with opportunity? I’ve not looked at the coaching hierarchy across Scotland but it’s something I need to do. You look at the positions within the SFA, from compliance officer appointments to Malky Mackay, MacLennan et al.

You then look at the fabric of the SNP, the majority of their MSPs and councillors are appointed from one particular religion or affinity to a certain club or cause (free Palestine anyone?).

Personally, I couldn’t give a toss about someone’s religion, it’s when their religion displays unprofessionalism, bias and bigotry that pisses me off.

The majority of Scottish clubs have been sycophantic arse licking bastards interested in their own survival whilst trying to destroy us. I have nothing but contempt for the lot of them and I will never be in their grounds ever again in my life and they will not receive a penny from me.

Rant over and feel better for that. B-D
Click to expand...

Spot on Cromwell.

This country is filled with hate nowadays, and our community is the target of it, normally unfairly.

Glad you feel a bit better LOL
 
It truly beggars belief that anyone can side with the SPFL over Rangers given what is being laid out here. I get that cùnts hate us, but I find it absolutely mental that someone would say we're causing trouble in an attempt to get rid of Doncaster and that's it.

He outsourced a part of his job and it ended up costing more than his annual salary, even after Rangers said they couldn't fulfil the contractual obligations of the deal. The usual suspects need sacked, fùcking chancers that they are.
 
1288Bear said:
It is inconceivable that cinch would not be aware of the SPFL's rules regarding the potential for clubs not to carry their sponsorship if it compromised any existing contractual obligations that club had. As such they would be unable, in normal circumstances, to walk away.

If, however, the SPFL were aware prior to concluding the deal with cinch that the Champion Club and, indeed, biggest Club in the land were unable to comply for this very reason and did not advise cinch of that fact then that could very well entitle them to walk away or at least to renegotiate the terms of the contract.

Not good for the SPFL Board :))
Click to expand...
They realised they had fecked up hence the angry response from them.
 
SDF91 said:
The SPFL, helped by the media, are trying to blame Rangers for this if Cinch pull out.

Any half decent journalist would be asking the SPFL why it’s own rules allow Rangers to do this, why Cinch would pull out if it was fully aware of the SPFL’s rules at the time of signing, and why a “massive” sponsorship seems to hinge on Rangers breaching existing contracts with its own sponsors.

There are plenty of uncomfortable questions for the league which should be asked by the press, but it’s far easier to sit on their collective backsides and blame Rangers. To think they were telling us all about the virtues of an independent press not one week ago.
Click to expand...
One does wonder during his briefing from dungcaster before writing his piece for the Rhebel, did Jacko ask the question..There's nothing else to come out and make me look stupid when I imply Rangers are bastards and being nasty to the SPFL out of spite?

We could make up a list of what we think Jacko is but surely not that he's completely stupid? Is he?
 
New York Bear said:
How water tight is our contract with Parks on this matter? The rule says we can ignore the obligations to cinch if they would place us in breach of contract with our Parks deal. Parks is not mentioned at all on our Commercial Partners page. Wondering what kind of language could exist in a deal with Parks that would prevent us from placing a sponsor like cinch on our shirt sleeves.

(BTW, the press have been saying its the Parks deal but same question applied to any other deal).

I hope we come out the winners on this, but we don't have a great track record here.
Click to expand...
Is why I think it is central car auctions parks I can barely engender seeing any advertising for them

But central car adductor have been advertising with us for years
 
Looks like we’re perfectly correct in our argument and should win this easily.

The big but though is that a lot of clubs would still rather stick it to Rangers even if it does negatively impact themselves.
 
Well played Rangers.
Not read the whole thread, but has the 'middle man' trousering the 500K been identified?
Wouldn't be too surprised if they have ties to the cabal ostensibly 'running' (or ruining) our game.
 
CooperSF said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1422959953007022081
Click to expand...
They had that fat mess Alison Mcconell on it the other day and she was saying Rangers are doing this “because of resentment about celtic winning the league 2 seasons ago”. Peter McGuire should just name that podcast after what it actually is call it a celtic podcast instead of kidding on they are anything other than that by calling it PLZ.
 
Simply a Bear said:
No doubt these two think Scottish football is world class, the envy of many leagues. Never mind that the football authorities here are openly corrupt and costing members money with every shady deal signed on their behalf.
Click to expand...
Sweden, 12 places below Scotland in the uefa coefficient table, get £12m PER SEASON! From unibet. These absolute dolts are happy with roughly a 10th of that, for a league that has one of the biggest derbies in the fucking world!! cinch must have been laughing their fucking arse off at it all.
 
Blues and Royals said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Dundee email should have nailed these rats to the floor.

But hey ho, welcome to Scotland.
 
I feel a lot more comfortable with this now that some details are actually out.

I’m still a bit nervous about whoever is giving the club legal advice due to things that have happened in the past but I think we are clearly in the right in this case.
 
BlueSeaOfIbrox said:
Amazing letter which seems to answer everything and shows clear as day we have them bang to rights...

Unbelievable that they ignored it all and went ahead with it. The cynic in me thinks there has to be more to this - They can't be THAT stupid and blatant
Click to expand...
I said as much in a previous post. They've blatantly signed the contract knowing there was issues. Why????
 
CooperSF said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1422959953007022081
Click to expand...
Look at the state of these two well known Rangers hating bigot bastards.

Mcmanus doesn’t know his left from right never mind anything to do with business and legal contracts, who is he to even comment on topics such as these, not least with a bigot loonball who presents the most irrelevant and useless show in the country?
 
Thor said:
Basically if you see someone messing up you aren’t allowed to call them out?!?!
Absolute tin pot organisation backed up by a compliant tin pot media!
Click to expand...

Imagine it worked that way in any other organisation?

Like in a warehouse there's a guy that keeps smashing all the inventory and costing the company and all the other employees a packet, but nobody is allowed to point it out because "that's poor".

Teflon Neil must absolutely love Rangers, because the only thing keeping him in a job is that the other clubs are shite scared of being seen to support us in anything.
 
Other clubs will. be happy to get 1.6 million and will not support us. If we told them we could double the amount they would immediately be our pals. The whole thing is just about cash which our clubs need,
 
New York Bear said:
How water tight is our contract with Parks on this matter? The rule says we can ignore the obligations to cinch if they would place us in breach of contract with our Parks deal. Parks is not mentioned at all on our Commercial Partners page. Wondering what kind of language could exist in a deal with Parks that would prevent us from placing a sponsor like cinch on our shirt sleeves.

(BTW, the press have been saying its the Parks deal but same question applied to any other deal).

I hope we come out the winners on this, but we don't have a great track record here.
Click to expand...
You don't mention Scots Law unless you have some degree of certainty, if the other club's won't helpl us rid our game of the scumbags running it. Then it might just take the court room to shake things up a bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top