Official Brutal statement from Park's of Hamilton about the Cinch deal and court process

fbshd said:
I wonder if Doncaster wants to go on the radio and, this time, allow questions from Tom English to clear everything up on this? No? Thought not. Any chance of the other member clubs asking questions? What about the privately funded Deloitte review? Anything?:mad:

FBS
Click to expand...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I saw this and thought of you. Parks of Hamilton's Statement
From:xxxxxxxxx@googlemail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2022 19:51
To: tom.english@bbc.co.uk
CC:

Hi Tom

A mate posted this on social media and I thought it might be Food for thought for you - perhaps you're already on it?!

"I wonder if Doncaster wants to go on the radio and, this time, allow questions from Tom English to clear everything up on this? No? Thought not. Any chance of the other member clubs asking questions? What about the privately funded Deloitte review? Anything? "


G'won, g'won, g'won - call for his head! Economic Climate/ Hardship/People suffering and an incompetent £388k salary.

Cheers
 
Good statement from Parks. Maybe a good time for our club to weigh in with their opinion. Spfl have slandered Rangers and don't have the decency to apologize for their lying. Cmon Rangers.get right into this corrupt,lying and hateful and shambolic organisation
 
BSPECIAL said:
Good statement from Parks. Maybe a good time for our club to weigh in with their opinion. Spfl have slandered Rangers and don't have the decency to apologize for their lying. Cmon Rangers.get right into this corrupt,lying and hateful and shambolic organisation
Click to expand...
Maybe Rangers are bound by the SPFL rules which has no jurisdiction whatsoever to Mr Parks. Think he is confident enough to hold these bastards to account, allowing our club to sit back and enjoy the show.
 
HawfHeedHartson said:
That's a brilliant statement and every word true. Well done Parks!
Click to expand...

The most powerful statements are the ones that there is no argument against.

Relatively rare, but this is one.

It is a very clever statement which sides with the SFA against the SPFL - Remember that the SFA were the ones who had to pick up the legal bill when Douglas park was [erroneously] excluded from the arbitration process. He's clearly pitting them against one another but Doncaster and McLennan are the main targets.

And of course it isn't Rangers making the statement. Tremendous stuff!
 
Last edited:
JD1872 said:
They might actually start getting pressured by the other clubs now. Anyone can see it was already a poor deal, now they have to knock several hundred thousand off it for legal fees due to their own incompetence

Interesting to see what the external review that Hearts and Aberdeen were working on comes up with. Could add more pressure
Click to expand...
Heads should role but they won’t
 
Chas said:
Murdoch MacLennan is a f*cking rat of the worst kind. Scottish football won’t move forward until him, Doncaster and the support act are purged altogether. Well done Parks and Rangers.
Click to expand...
Spot on mate. Remember he was responsible for sending a letter to all member clubs intimating that 1 member club was putting them all in financial jeopardy. A disgusting tactic to try and build resentment and also bully one member who had a disagreement with them.

He should be dismissed for that alone. They’ve lied to member clubs and cost them the much needed finances that they said Rangers would be depriving them of.

They played with money that’s not there theirs through sheer malevolence, hatred and unprofessionalism.

How blind are the rest of Scottish football to accept these people, one can only assume that they agree with the hatred and bloodlust to try and destroy us.
 
I sometimes think when I put a bet on South American or African football wondering if these countries and teams maybe are corrupt. It is honestly happening in our wee country.
 
mdingwall said:
Brutal statement from Park's of Hamilton about the Cinch deal and court process

They are taking no prisoners here.


Statement from Parks of Hamilton Ltd

A spokesperson for Parks of Hamilton Ltd said: “We were not surprised to learn from the media announcement last night that the SPFL have finally acknowledged Rangers legitimately engaged rule i7 in June of last year and thus, vindicated the stance held by the club for over a year. It is not for us to speculate as to why the SPFL leadership sought to ignore their own rules for so long.

“The fact that the SPFL prevaricated and continued to stall an arbitration process they themselves initiated in August last year, and which was ruled upon by the court of appeal in October, underlined the weakness of the case they truly had. Were it not for our interim interdict, it is clear their strategy was to try and bully one of their members and shareholders; a strategy which they have employed on numerous occasions.

“Throughout the last year, Park’s have kept their counsel as the SPFL leadership insulted us and misled the SFA, their member clubs, their title sponsor, and various other stakeholders in Scottish football.

“We have a long standing and proud association with Scottish football, and it was entirely wrong that we were compelled to take the SFA to court because the SPFL decided to abuse the SFA’s arbitration process. We believe that the SPFL and members of its leadership have brought the game in to disrepute and have failed, as have the SPFL as an organisation, to act with the utmost good faith towards their members.

“The SFA must carry out an independent investigation into this issue which has cost all parties involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. Despite being awarded expenses in court, Park’s will not recover all their legal fees nor be compensated for the reputational damage caused by the SPFL.

“Finally, the glaring omission from the SPFL’s statement was an apology. The SPFL leadership owe their members an apology, they owe Park's an apology, they owe the SFA an apology and they also owe an apology to Rangers. Unfortunately, they seem to lack any accountability and would rather spend their members money than admit their failures.”
Click to expand...
Well done. Told them exactly how they felt and left them in no doubt what Parks thought of it all. There are always two sides to a story and for months it had all been one way traffic, despite Park’s trying to explain their position. Good to see Rangers minded people, getting their point across in such a clear manner. Well done.
 
Cromwell said:
Spot on mate. Remember he was responsible for sending a letter to all member clubs intimating that 1 member club was putting them all in financial jeopardy. A disgusting tactic to try and build resentment and also bully one member who had a disagreement with them.

He should be dismissed for that alone. They’ve lied to member clubs and cost them the much needed finances that they said Rangers would be depriving them of.

They played with money that’s not there theirs through sheer malevolence, hatred and unprofessionalism.

How blind are the rest of Scottish football to accept these people, one can only assume that they agree with the hatred and bloodlust to try and destroy us.
Click to expand...
Of course they do.
 
We're fighting this battle on our own, I'm afraid. The rest of the clubs would rather be treated like shite by Doncaster than admit we're right about the corrupt scum destroying our game.
 
mike myers loyal said:
Was there not talk of other clubs suing Rangers if Cinch refused to pony up due to our stance? Maybe these same member clubs should be on the phone to Doncaster now and telling him all court fees should be taken from the mammoth wage that him and that old idiot bastard McLennan are stealing from them.
Click to expand...
Still, some fans of the diddy clubs are blaming Rangers, they can’t see past their hatred.
 
Just read The SPFL halfwits have released a desperate rhetorical press release.
They really are a poisonous , condescending, inept, conglomerate of parasites, who know they are failing Scottish Football.

The fact that they felt the need to respond , indicates that they are worried about their fiefdom diminishing .

Getting top pay for continued gross negligence is an irreplaceable role. They won’t be able to earn it anywhere else .

The gravy train is potentially grinding to a sobering halt, their PR team are hoping the corporate inadequates of the SPFL members club will be fawning at their amateur cryptic hour response.

Neil Doncaster has the similar comparable affinity to football, as the fat man who owns sports chains and previously northern football clubs. At what point will the SPFL grab him by his diamond cuff links , and boot him up and down the hampden car park? ( metaphorically of course)
 
MrMols said:
No holding back with that statement,

I don’t think we’ll hear the last of this for a while yet, meanwhile Donecaster will continue to ruin Scottish football while every other club stands by and let’s him take the piss out of them.
Click to expand...
Thank God we've got Spade loads of European cash coming in ever year. Imagine being stuck with the Scottish share of money.
 
ResoluteLoyal73 said:
Just read The SPFL halfwits have released a desperate rhetorical press release.
They really are a poisonous , condescending, inept, conglomerate of parasites, who know they are failing Scottish Football.

The fact that they felt the need to respond , indicates that they are worried about their fiefdom diminishing .

Getting top pay for continued gross negligence is an irreplaceable role. They won’t be able to earn it anywhere else .

The gravy train is potentially grinding to a sobering halt, their PR team are hoping the corporate inadequates of the SPFL members club will be fawning at their amateur cryptic hour response.

Neil Doncaster has the similar comparable affinity to football, as the fat man who owns sports chains and previously northern football clubs. At what point will the SPFL grab him by his diamond cuff links , and boot him up and down the hampden car park? ( metaphorically of course)
Click to expand...
Any pointers to the statement?
 
temperance said:
Any pointers to the statement?
Click to expand...
A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events.

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout.

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs. We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
 
dconthewing said:
A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events.

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout.

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs. We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
Click to expand...
Cheers, I look forward to their rationale, but they are saying they have to ask Rangers and Parks if a confidentiality agreement is still in place? Surely they should know this.
 
Well played Dougie. Let’s see their statement of events. The great thing is that he can get after them and Rangers don’t need to get involved. Brilliant.
 
Does anyone know what the interpretation of this new cinch contract will be for Rangers commercially?
Is it written in such a way that it frees Rangers up to pursue their own match sponsorship for matches at Ibrox?
If we are not to be allowed to benefit from the league sponsorship, isn't that an opportunity for us to cash in with other sponsors when we host league matches?
Is there such a commercial relevance in these recent developments for Rangers?
 
You can just vision Mcgifty raging and shouting " What are we gonna do about Rangers ah canny stand the basses "
 
rossgers said:
How is the SFA compliance officers case coming along?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it’s a role that can investigate the SPFL, but if there was ever a NON-COMPLIANCE then this would be an open and shut case.
Having an office in the same building, with probably the same canteen, parking spots and nights out, makes the job of governance of the whole of Scottish football a closed shop.
SFA/SPFL CORRUPT TO THE CORE.
 
dconthewing said:
A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events.

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout.

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs. We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
Click to expand...

Snide and childish. Exactly as you would expect.
 
bilkobear said:
Does anyone know what the interpretation of this new cinch contract will be for Rangers commercially?
Is it written in such a way that it frees Rangers up to pursue their own match sponsorship for matches at Ibrox?
If we are not to be allowed to benefit from the league sponsorship, isn't that an opportunity for us to cash in with other sponsors when we host league matches?
Is there such a commercial relevance in these recent developments for Rangers?
Click to expand...
It’s a win-win. We don’t have to advertise cinch but we still get our share of their money via the positional payments for where we finish in the League.

One thing we don’t know is whether we can sell that sleeve sponsorship to another company.

And then there’s this little article:

theathletic.com

Rangers believe they are not subject to SPFL-wide sponsorship deals

Rangers are confident that they are no longer obliged to be part of SPFL-wide sponsorship deals after member clubs passed a resolution to revise the £8...
theathletic.com theathletic.com
 
I still wonder if at some stage Rangers and other clubs who have had enough threatening to create a new league away from SPFL.

Do some background work and see if there's a potential TV deal and commercial partners who would be interested in jumping leaving Doncaster and co behind. Might convince the clubs if there's more money available.
 
TerryMunro said:
Maybe Rangers are bound by the SPFL rules which has no jurisdiction whatsoever to Mr Parks. Think he is confident enough to hold these bastards to account, allowing our club to sit back and enjoy the show.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the situation.
The SPFL/SFA could not believe that Park’s were able to step in legally as a party to the arrangements.
They had clearly planned to punish Rangers as a member club behind closed doors during the SFA arbitration process.
The incompetence of themselves and their legal advisers, did not understand that Park’s had to have its say in the proceedings.
That meant that an external party would be able to publicly comment on the kangaroo court which could never be tolerated!!
And that’s the reason why, when the court of appeal made its indicative decision, the Muppets knew the game was up.
I am still convinced that McLennan has had a backhander in this fiasco as he was involved with the guy from cinch in another role previously.
It’s probably because of this that cinch have stayed silent as they are happy to do the deal because it’s so cheap.
 
We have been bullied and cheated for long enough, let's hope that this is the beginning of a new dawn and Rangers will no longer accept being treated differently to other clubs on and off the park. Cheating bast@#ds the lot of them.
 
It’s a hard statement but again it simply highlights to me that Park as chairman isn’t slow in defending his own company from the rooftops

However, as we’ve seen many times over the last year or so, not so quick to defend the club over issues and instead hide behind the dignified silence nonsense as was stated at the AGM
 
dconthewing said:
A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events.

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout.

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs. We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
Click to expand...
Parks are in my opinion, a third party that are not obligated to conform to the spfl rules on confidentiality- hence the statement- spfl then draft a statement saying they have written to RANGERS and Parks for confirmation that confidentiality no longer applies- Rangers did not issue any statement and have conformed to the SPFL’s rules on confidentiality.

but the SPFL desperately need Rangers to get involved as party to Parks statement in order for RANGERS to have breached the SPFL confidentiality rules and any subsequent penalties inflicted on Rangers.

Rangers only response should be “we note with interest the communications of Parks and the SPFL “ but at this time cannot comment on whether the original statement from parks breached confidentiality as this is a matter solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve as to whether communications between these 2 individual parties breached confidentiality.

on this point Rangers can confirm that no statement was released from Rangers on the outcome of the SPFL’s renegotiated sponsorship deal with Cinch and would like to make it known that the current confidentiality dispute is solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve, bearing this in mind Rangers will not communicate further on this subject as we as a football club within the SPFL are restricted by the SPFL’s own confidentiality rules.

I’m Probably talking shite here ^^^^^^ but would love something to happen along these lines
 
Last edited:
dconthewing said:
A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note with interest Park’s version of events.

“We are currently bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had to keep our counsel throughout.

"However, we have written to Rangers and Park’s seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer applies, following yesterday’s announcement of our revised title sponsorship agreement with cinch.

“If they agree to our proposal we will be able to provide a full and frank narrative to our member clubs. We very much look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
Click to expand...
in fact,
the parks statement has nothing to do with rangers.
rangers, if i am correct, hav'nt broken confidentiality.
 
joseph said:
Parks are in my opinion, a third party that are not obligated to conform to the spfl rules on confidentiality- hence the statement- spfl then draft a statement saying they have written to RANGERS and Parks for confirmation that confidentiality no longer applies- Rangers did not issue any statement and have conformed to the SPFL’s rules on confidentiality.

but the SPFL desperately need Rangers to get involved as party to Parks statement in order for RANGERS to have breached the SPFL confidentiality rules and any subsequent penalties inflicted on Rangers.

Rangers only response should be “we note with interest the communications of Parks and the SPFL “ but at this time cannot comment on whether the original statement from parks breached confidentiality as this is a matter solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve as to whether communications between these 2 individual parties breached confidentiality.

on this point Rangers can confirm that no statement was released from Rangers on the outcome of the SPFL’s renegotiated sponsorship deal with Cinch and would like to make it known that the current confidentiality dispute is solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve, bearing this in mind Rangers will not communicate further on this subject as we as a football club within the SPFL are restricted by the SPFL’s own confidentiality rules.

I’m Probably talking shite here ^^^^^^ but would love something to happen along these lines
Click to expand...
perfect.
 
joseph said:
Parks are in my opinion, a third party that are not obligated to conform to the spfl rules on confidentiality- hence the statement- spfl then draft a statement saying they have written to RANGERS and Parks for confirmation that confidentiality no longer applies- Rangers did not issue any statement and have conformed to the SPFL’s rules on confidentiality.

but the SPFL desperately need Rangers to get involved as party to Parks statement in order for RANGERS to have breached the SPFL confidentiality rules and any subsequent penalties inflicted on Rangers.

Rangers only response should be “we note with interest the communications of Parks and the SPFL “ but at this time cannot comment on whether the original statement from parks breached confidentiality as this is a matter solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve as to whether communications between the 2 parties breached confidentiality.

on this point Rangers can confirm that no statement was released from Rangers on the outcome of the SPFL’s renegotiated sponsorship deal with Cinch and would like to make it known that the current confidentiality dispute is solely between the SPFL and PARKS to resolve, bearing this in mind Rangers will not communicate further on this subject as we as a football club within the SPFL are restricted by the SPFL’s own confidentiality rules.

I’m Probably talking shite here ^^^^^^ but would love something to happen along these lines
Click to expand...
Not sure you are too far off here.
By Parks issuing the statement and as sponsors of Rangers, as a club we have done nothing to break any contract or rules.
Parks took them to court and won....not us.
It certainly looks st this stage we played s blinder but you never know with these slippery cnuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top