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

TerryMunro said:
SPFL was made aware of the issue prior to entering the deal with cinch, cinch should of also been made aware of the issue and if not why weren't they.
Click to expand...
That's my point. If they were then they took the deal knowing the situation. If they were mis-sold they may have a right to terminate the deal.

"Why weren't they"? That's a possible benefit for us because if they weren't then it's another piece of evidence that backs our opinion that those running the SPFL are incompetent. Hopefully others become aware of this.
 
Can anyone divulge where the agency commission information came from.
My innate cynicism fired up when I saw it.
In who's interest is it to divulge even the existence of an agency?
Perhaps a certain Neil Doncaster, in the knowledge he cocked things up, is distancing himself from the deal.
Aw poor Neil, that agency really dropped him in it, we won't use them again. Wasn't Neil's fault, nothing to do with him. We won't hold him responsible.
It's not a new routine.
 
We know from last year unfortunately that the vast majority of Scottish clubs are run by pansies who will just see the prospect of getting a few measly quid per game out of this deal, and if it ends up they don't it will be Rangers fault. I just hope we are watertight on the legals.
 
aayjay said:
We know from last year unfortunately that the vast majority of Scottish clubs are run by scum loverswho will just see the prospect of getting a few measly quid per game out of this deal, and if it ends up they don't it will be Rangers fault. I just hope we are watertight on the legals.
Click to expand...
Be honest
 
Like everything to do with the SPFL murky doesn't cover it.
I really hope we have all our ducks in a row evidentially and finally we can blow a hole in the cabal.
Much like the scum, the SPFL has been able to glide along over the last ten years, sliding into bad practice, deceit, incompetence and arrogance.
One mirrors the other.
We've broken one, we need to break the other.
 
Chocolateleftfoot said:
Am I tripping, or did we have a Ladbrokes badge on the sleave whilst also having 32red on the front?
Click to expand...

We did. But then our chairman wasn't owner of a rival betting company B-)

280419_aberdeen_tavernier_goal_cele_arfield_46.jpg
 
It’s telling that so many supposed football fans are perfectly happy to get a bad deal for all clubs regardless of how badly our game is struggling just because it’s Rangers who raise the issues. It’s a frame of mind that’s very prevalent in Scotland, with people perfectly happy to vote for politicians who will do a very poor job of running the country but at least they hate the same people that voters hate. It’s a corrupt and hate filled hole nowadays.
 
Big Vern said:
Doesn't mention a competitor though, just conflicting contractual obligations

"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."

So could exclusive rights to areas of the strip be covered?
Click to expand...
Could be exclusive rights to areas of the strip but we’ve said we would be unable to provide cinch “with many of their rights” so sounds like the issue is not just limited to strip advertising
 

Rangers outburst sparks SPFL emergency summit as league chiefs still wait on Ibrox proof​

There are major concerns behind the scenes at Hampden that the £8m commercial deal could be pulled.

League bosses will hold emergency talks this morning over an escalating crisis with Rangers - after the Ibrox club launched another blistering attack on Hampden’s sixth floor.

Record Sport revealed on Tuesday that SPFL sponsors cinch could pull the plug on a new £8m commercial deal after the champions refused to display any of their branding during an opening day win over Livingston.

And Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson has doubled down on his position in a letter to Scotland’s other 41 clubs in which he raises a series of concerns about the handling of the potentially explosive controversy.

In his letter Robertson insists that Rangers made it clear they would not be able to honour the terms and conditions of the deal before league chief executive Neil Doncaster put pen to paper on the agreement.

He suggests that Doncaster may have been part of an attempted cover-up ever since the dispute with the online car dealers went public.

And he has accused Doncaster of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds by hiring an external agency to land the lucrative package in the first place.

Now we understand his outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting this morning - while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.

(Robertsons letter printed in full )

The high profile spat has infuriated a number of top flight clubs who fear the English based firm are on the verge of ripping up a deal worth £1.6m per season over the next five years.

And Record Sport understands cinch have made it clear to the SPFL that they expect the situation to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
 
Is my memory playing tricks? Were these rulebooks not written by their very own, the late "Pink Solicitor"?
Maybe it was just the football side, can't remember.
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:

Rangers outburst sparks SPFL emergency summit as league chiefs still wait on Ibrox proof​

There are major concerns behind the scenes at Hampden that the £8m commercial deal could be pulled.

League bosses will hold emergency talks this morning over an escalating crisis with Rangers - after the Ibrox club launched another blistering attack on Hampden’s sixth floor.

Record Sport revealed on Tuesday that SPFL sponsors cinch could pull the plug on a new £8m commercial deal after the champions refused to display any of their branding during an opening day win over Livingston.

And Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson has doubled down on his position in a letter to Scotland’s other 41 clubs in which he raises a series of concerns about the handling of the potentially explosive controversy.

In his letter Robertson insists that Rangers made it clear they would not be able to honour the terms and conditions of the deal before league chief executive Neil Doncaster put pen to paper on the agreement.

He suggests that Doncaster may have been part of an attempted cover-up ever since the dispute with the online car dealers went public.

And he has accused Doncaster of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds by hiring an external agency to land the lucrative package in the first place.

Now we understand his outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting this morning - while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.

(Robertsons letter printed in full )

The high profile spat has infuriated a number of top flight clubs who fear the English based firm are on the verge of ripping up a deal worth £1.6m per season over the next five years.

And Record Sport understands cinch have made it clear to the SPFL that they expect the situation to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
Click to expand...
The DR lickspittles respond with their customary anti Rangers arse licking.
 
"Ibrox proof"
Starting to get messy. When were we first asked for this, will be the next question?
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:

Rangers outburst sparks SPFL emergency summit as league chiefs still wait on Ibrox proof​

There are major concerns behind the scenes at Hampden that the £8m commercial deal could be pulled.

League bosses will hold emergency talks this morning over an escalating crisis with Rangers - after the Ibrox club launched another blistering attack on Hampden’s sixth floor.

Record Sport revealed on Tuesday that SPFL sponsors cinch could pull the plug on a new £8m commercial deal after the champions refused to display any of their branding during an opening day win over Livingston.

And Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson has doubled down on his position in a letter to Scotland’s other 41 clubs in which he raises a series of concerns about the handling of the potentially explosive controversy.

In his letter Robertson insists that Rangers made it clear they would not be able to honour the terms and conditions of the deal before league chief executive Neil Doncaster put pen to paper on the agreement.

He suggests that Doncaster may have been part of an attempted cover-up ever since the dispute with the online car dealers went public.

And he has accused Doncaster of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds by hiring an external agency to land the lucrative package in the first place.

Now we understand his outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting this morning - while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.

(Robertsons letter printed in full )

The high profile spat has infuriated a number of top flight clubs who fear the English based firm are on the verge of ripping up a deal worth £1.6m per season over the next five years.

And Record Sport understands cinch have made it clear to the SPFL that they expect the situation to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
Click to expand...
Would love to know how much BIG PR are paying Jackson/Record to continually spin on behalf of the SPFL.
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:
Now we understand his outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting this morning - while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.
Click to expand...
Was this Keech by any chance who wrote this dribble of mental diarrhea?

"Outburst" :))

And we'll not be providing any evidence of our internal contracts to plebs. Jog on you corned beef faced gremlin, your dwindling media is no longer relevant.
 
Rule I7 in full in case anyone is interested:


Subject:-

I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being approved to be entered into by the Company; and

I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21

the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.
 
Cyberniv said:
"Ibrox proof"
Starting to get messy. When were we first asked for this, will be the next question?
Click to expand...
Most contracts will, as a standard term, provide that the contract is to be kept confidential and may only be disclosed in limited circumstances (e.g. to a regulator or court, as required by law). I wouldn't be surprised if Rangers tell the SPFL to ram their request for proof where the sun don't shine.
 
The Redcoat said:
Is there not a way for people who own shares in Rangers to find out how much the transfer fees actually are when they are undisclosed?

Or are the transfer fees undisclosed to share holders too?
Click to expand...
It's not marked in the annual accounts for individual transfers so no chance. I've been a shareholder for years and assume if it's announced as undisclosed we will be fullfilling contractual obligations - I think only our accountants, and bankers would have an idea, not even our auditors would get that level of direct info (over a number of years they may be able to make an informed guess though )
 
ald said:
Most contracts will, as a standard term, provide that the contract is to be kept confidential and may only be disclosed in limited circumstances (e.g. to a regulator or court, as required by law). I wouldn't be surprised if Rangers tell the SPFL to ram their request for proof where the sun don't shine.
Click to expand...
That sounds helpful. The only other problem I see is, can we prove we told them in advance of the sponsorship deal, that it conflicts with other contracts we hold.
All they have to say is Rangers never told us.
 
Cyberniv said:
"Ibrox proof"
Starting to get messy. When were we first asked for this, will be the next question?
Click to expand...
No proof needed as Rangers actually didn't need to inform the SPFL, that would be their (SPFL) own commercial responsibility in delivering any new deal for the clubs

Rangers acted in good faith, showed a responsible attitude in voluntarily declaring concerns and the commisioning body did not act on it.

Unless the contract between the parties has some allowances for I7 then the games a bogey
 
I had no idea who Cinch were and what they did.
I do now.
What’s that saying, no such thing as bad publicity?

Rangers have given them it, they can f**k off
 
fourbaw83 said:
It's not marked in the annual accounts for individual transfers so no chance. I've been a shareholder for years and assume if it's announced as undisclosed we will be fullfilling contractual obligations - I think only our accountants, and bankers would have an idea, not even our auditors would get that level of direct info (over a number of years they may be able to make an informed guess though )
Click to expand...
Accountants and auditors will see it as they have to be able to validate the turnover and income
 
FifeBear55 said:
Yeah, but maybe there were different terms with the 32Red deal that differ from the Parks deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah Ladbrokes were the SPFL sponsor before 32red were the shirt sponsor.

I suppose the SPFL clubs wouldn't allow the rules of the SPFL rules to exclude rival company shirt sponsors in the same way.
 
MarkD87 said:
That's my point. If they were then they took the deal knowing the situation. If they were mis-sold they may have a right to terminate the deal.

"Why weren't they"? That's a possible benefit for us because if they weren't then it's another piece of evidence that backs our opinion that those running the SPFL are incompetent. Hopefully others become aware of this.
Click to expand...

You could potentially go beyond calling their behaviour ‘incompetent’ ?

Maybe negligent ? Maybe even stronger ?
 
fourbaw83 said:
It's not marked in the annual accounts for individual transfers so no chance. I've been a shareholder for years and assume if it's announced as undisclosed we will be fullfilling contractual obligations - I think only our accountants, and bankers would have an idea, not even our auditors would get that level of direct info (over a number of years they may be able to make an informed guess though )
Click to expand...

Yes there will be legal clauses in place to keep all that kind of stuff confidential. There would be no point keeping the transfer fees undisclosed when journalists could just buy shares to find out all that info anyway.
 
I can only imagine how some of those discussions amongst chairman go. Whether we are in the right or not, we won’t win this battle. We’ve been down this road before and the value of a rule, in my opinion, appears to be close to zero. It’s beyond disappointing.
 
cornholio said:
No proof needed as Rangers actually didn't need to inform the SPFL, that would be their (SPFL) own commercial responsibility in delivering any new deal for the clubs

Rangers acted in good faith, showed a responsible attitude in voluntarily declaring concerns and the commisioning body did not act on it.

Unless the contract between the parties has some allowances for I7 then the games a bogey
Click to expand...
Not doubting what you're saying, just find it a bit counterintuitive.
Should the SPFL have approached Rangers and asked about conflicts? How else would they know if we are not obliged to inform the SPFL ourselves?
Seems to me then, that the SPFL are all but accusing Rangers of lying by asking for proof that Rangers are not obliged to provide.
Should they just take our word for it?
 
Cyberniv said:
Not doubting what you're saying, just find it a bit counterintuitive.
Should the SPFL have approached Rangers and asked about conflicts? How else would they know if we are not obliged to inform the SPFL ourselves?
Seems to me then, that the SPFL are all but accusing Rangers of lying by asking for proof that Rangers are not obliged to provide.
Should they just take our word for it?
Click to expand...
They are obfuscating - muddying waters, casting doubt on our position. The SNP do it all the time when in a corner

The SPFL know they haven't a leg to stand on here - its all about controlling the narrative and hoping the story dies
 
I may be looking at this too simplistically but if the club has said there is a commercial, contracted conflict then providing evidence strengthens the case and highlights the SPFL/SFA incompetence. By not providing evidence it gives them a "get out of jail" card.
 
Yosser said:
I may be looking at this too simplistically but if the club has said there is a commercial, contracted conflict then providing evidence strengthens the case and highlights the SPFL/SFA incompetence. By not providing evidence it gives them a "get out of jail" card.
Click to expand...
The only place Rangers should be providing evidence is in a courtroom when presenting their case. Not fore warning them.
 
Yosser said:
I may be looking at this too simplistically but if the club has said there is a commercial, contracted conflict then providing evidence strengthens the case and highlights the SPFL/SFA incompetence. By not providing evidence it gives them a "get out of jail" card.
Click to expand...
Apparently we are not obliged to provide evidence and they're not entitled to ask for it.
Seems strange to me, I may have picked up cornholio post 330 above wrongly.
 
Looking at the list of partners it doesn't officially include Parks so I'm not sure who would be the partner that would object to cinch? We need to be absolutely sure that we have concrete evidence whoever this partner was confirmed they objected to the potential cinch deal before it was signed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top