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

[geoallison]

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.

Well said, totally agree with that.

 

[Virgil Hilts]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422959953007022081

Whit?

Transparency / corporate governance / fiduciary imperative?

Nah, fućk that.

 

[Marfc_84]

£388k per year before bonuses, and the man has outsourced one of his only jobs in the role.

An absolute leech to the sport he pretends to represent.

 

[The Iceman]

Why would Cinch withdraw?

Up until a couple of months ago I'd never even heard of them. Then the SPFL announce a deal - I think to myself "what's a Cinch?"

Now that Rangers have challenged this shitfest of a deal, I actually found myself looking into what they are, and even ended up on their website (very purpley/pink). These rat bastards should be thanking us for the press we are giving them.

They will give them an extra five years sponsorship for nothing to make up for it.

 

[McQueen]

Neil Doncaster is comparable with Humza Yousaf on the incompetency scale.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

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.

The Dundee email should have nailed these rats to the floor.

But hey ho, welcome to Scotland.

“Its poor”WTAF!
it seems he’s outsourced his freaking job. People should be up in arms about this. I bet the agency and cinch has connections to sellik, in some way, either in the past or presently.

When Billy McNeill got sacked/resigned in the summer of 1983, the then Chairman of the filth, Desmond White. came out and told us financial details of McNeill's loans and soft mortgage courtesy of the club.

Their all conquering, captain, Caeser's financial arrangements with his employers made public.

Now, that's what you call poor.

 

[Ardoyne RSC]

We should offer lucrative friendlies to the other clubs.

This would appear to get results

 

[Tim Hunter]

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.

INM was sold to a Belgian company a few years ago.
That does not detract from the fact that Shifty McGifty is a bagman for Fritzel.

 

[Derek1960]

Sets it up nicely now forcing the cabal to respond to either deny or admit that the points we have raised are factual. Rangers have played this out to perfection. It may finish Doncaster this time.

Doncaster will organise a BBC Sportsound exclusive interview with that intrepid reporter Dick Gordon.

No stone will be left unturned as Doncaster assures everyone that he is not to blame.

 

[RenfrewBear72]

I 1 thing I took from that “cinch”, no capital C, nice touch.

 

[BlueBuzz]

SPFL have fucked it.

They have fucked it on many occasions in the past , but still they remain.

 

[KirkieRanger]

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

Yeah but will they have the backbone and speak out in our support? I think that I know the answer to that one, I think that we all know.

W.A.T.P.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

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 do wonder who the 3rd party are who were asked to find this deal.

I'd wager everything I own they have links to SPFL directors and/or tims.

Someone earlier mentioned G6V. No idea who they are

 

[Corkinator]

Someone earlier mentioned G6V. No idea who they are

GV6

Sean McAuliffe​

I wonder what his background is!!

 

[htws]

£388k per year before bonuses, and the man has outsourced one of his only jobs in the role.

An absolute leech to the sport he pretends to represent.

If Doncaster does get fired I hope we don't have to chip in for his severance, he should be terminated for cause along with the other scum at SPFL

 

[rupertdabear]

​

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.”

a few head shots .love it . they are on the ropes .will donkeyass survive this .
club playing a blinder here

 

[Ek_blue]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422959953007022081

What a total fanny.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

Yeah but will they have the backbone and speak out in our support? I think that I know the answer to that one, I think that we all know.

W.A.T.P.

That’s obviously the issue Kirkie.

Roughly 30% voted against them before, the main clubs being Aberdeen, Hearts, Thistle & us.

I don’t see any of them changing.

Remember, the others might change in support of what Thistle & Hearts went through, and this might be their first chance to show that ?

English hinted at a number being pissed off but didn’t agree with our approach, so voted for the SPFL.

 

[Corkinator]

That’s obviously the issue Kirkie.

Roughly 30% voted against them before, the main clubs being Aberdeen, Hearts, Thistle & us.

I don’t see any of them changing.

Remember, the others might change in support of what Thistle & Hearts went through, and this might be their first chance to show that ?

English hinted at a number being pissed off but didn’t agree with our approach, so voted for the SPFL.

What “approach” we’ve done bugger all wrong! We actually gave them a heads up, which we didn’t need to.
I believe there’s absolutely nothing they can do, it’s a total conflict of interest which we highlighted and they ignored.

 

[104Bear]

Stewart will get nine or ten phone calls, “look Stewart, we agree with you but we can’t be seen to be helping Rangers”

 

[waldo 1160]

"Hello Peter ? It's Neil..... "fcuk off Neil I'm out !"...." But but Peter you said if we got the Dundee thing sorted......."clunk, phone doon.

 

[104Bear]

Double post

 

[Albertz Loyal]

Looks like lile we have them bang to rights

We had them bang to rights over the missing email.. that didn't pan out to well

 

[wampaone]

go for the jugular Rangers.

That’s how you kill a circus, which the SPFL definitely is.

 

[final_straws]

That’s obviously the issue Kirkie.

Roughly 30% voted against them before, the main clubs being Aberdeen, Hearts, Thistle & us.

I don’t see any of them changing.

Remember, the others might change in support of what Thistle & Hearts went through, and this might be their first chance to show that ?

English hinted at a number being pissed off but didn’t agree with our approach, so voted for the SPFL.

Do we actually need support from others though?

If (and I say if because our track record isn't brilliant) it is a cut & dry situation where it clearly breaches a contract with Park, we flagged this issue pre signing & have ability to veto, then it shouldn't really matter whether we have support or not.

 

[Gibraltar Loyal]

We had them bang to rights over the missing email.. that didn't pan out to well

This is different circumstances

 

[MarkD87]

There's only an issue if:
- cinch have the right to pull the deal knowing that they might not get their brand associated with specific member clubs;
- and/or members are dissatisfied that the SPFL board are contracting out for commercial deals

If neither of these are an issue then this is a non story, just to try again to make us seem like the villain.

I'm glad we have come out with a statement to offer transparency for our situation.

 

[billybluehat]

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.

Too true mate. We always have been and always will be. It really us and them.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

Do we actually need support from others though?

If (and I say if because our track record isn't brilliant) it is a cut & dry situation where it clearly breaches a contract with Park, we flagged this issue pre signing & have ability to veto, then it shouldn't really matter whether we have support or not.

Sorry FS. You’re right.

Where my mind was on a vote of no confidence in them to get Doncaster & MacLennan out.

Here, I don’t think we do anything, just say no.

 

[douzpwa]

Not sure he is asking for support more like given an explanation to what is going on and that the ball was in the spfl's court where rule 17 was pointed out to them before any deal was made?

 

[TerryMunro]

There's only an issue if:
- cinch have the right to pull the deal knowing that they might not get their brand associated with specific member clubs;
- and/or members are dissatisfied that the SPFL board are contracting out for commercial deals

If neither of these are an issue then this is a non story, just to try again to make us seem like the villain.

I'm glad we have come out with a statement to offer transparency for our situation.

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.

 

[Aveling & Porter]

Do we actually need support from others though?

If (and I say if because our track record isn't brilliant) it is a cut & dry situation where it clearly breaches a contract with Park, we flagged this issue pre signing & have ability to veto, then it shouldn't really matter whether we have support or not.

We need support to get rid of them. They are accountable to the clubs as they represent the clubs. If the clubs don't speak up to kick them out then the status quo will remain.

 

[Btbamrfc]

No doubt we will be fighting this on our own, again.

 

[Govan36]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422959953007022081

And the SPFL executive not disclosing the £100k is OK ? "Ya couple o' fannies"

Rangers are desperate to see Neil Doncaster sacked? So he shouldn't be sacked for gross negligence ?

We'll get a statement from Doncaster, same as Easter 2020, "yes we've made mistakes but let's move forward. I have done nothing wrong."

 

[arnietac1]

The Dundee email should have nailed these rats to the floor.

But hey ho, welcome to Scotland.


When Billy McNeill got sacked/resigned in the summer of 1983, the then Chairman of the filth, Desmond White. came out and told us financial details of McNeill's loans and soft mortgage courtesy of the club.

Their all conquering, captain, Caeser's financial arrangements with his employers made public.

Now, that's what you call poor.

Fair point and i do remember that Gub. Always classy.
I also remember the message in the Rangers end at the Nou Dump shortly after said Chairman's demise: straight, succinct and er, to the point.

 

[YorkshireBlue]

This is the best possible advertising cinch will ever get.

Better than their wank radio adverts.

 

[Virgil Hilts]

There's only an issue if:
- cinch have the right to pull the deal knowing that they might not get their brand associated with specific member clubs;
- and/or members are dissatisfied that the SPFL board are contracting out for commercial deals

If neither of these are an issue then this is a non story, just to try again to make us seem like the villain.

I'm glad we have come out with a statement to offer transparency for our situation.

OR if SPFL directors have instructed a third party to sell the rights to advertise on the champions’ shirt, when said directors have been left in no doubt that such an offer is outwith their gift.

 

[Yosser]

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.

We probably need to show the commercial agreement that exonerates us.

 

[Big Vern]

Is it definitely a sponsor business conflict? Not just that we've sold exclusive rights to sleeves, front and back of shirt and shorts? Therefore unable to display Cinch anywhere on strip?

Do we not also sell match sponsorship packages which allow the sponsor to name man of the match? I'm sure there was H&H man of match for a couple of games last season.

 

[KYBear_74]

The thing about Sweden having a better sponsorship and Doncaster being unable to get one; I would venture a guess that these companies are well aware of all the shenanigan's and corruption that has been on display for all the world to see these past few years.

Why in the world would a sponsor pay the proper going rate for a league, even with Stevie G, when they know it's not professionally run?

 

[Marstonbear]

Is it definitely a sponsor business conflict? Not just that we've sold exclusive rights to sleeves, front and back of shirt and shorts? Therefore unable to display Cinch anywhere on strip?

Do we not also sell match sponsorship packages which allow the sponsor to name man of the match? I'm sure there was H&H man of match for a couple of games last season.

It reads to me that as long as we have some sort of commercial deal with a company that could be construed as a competitor to cinch then we can cite rule 17. Doesn’t matter the size of the deal just that conflict exists.

We’d be beyond mental to tell the SPFL we had an agreement like this if in fact on closer Inspection we didn’t

 

[gersandproud]

I wouldn't expect Cinch to be aware of - or even care too much about - what obligations the SPFL will or won't have with it's members
It would only be interested in negotiating it's own contract with the SPFL -

Cinch would also expect the SPFL to be negotiating a contract they could deliver on

If - as it turns out - the SPFL were not in a position to offer & sign a contract they were unable to fulfil in total -
then the SPFL are in breach of said contract & Cinch are in a position to legally pull the plug while making a claim against the SPFL for entering a contract under false pretensions & / or loss of earnings

The fault can only lie with the SPFL IMO

& Like I said in an earlier post -
IMO the only reason for the SPFL going public on this - is to show us up in a bad light - to infer we're cutting off funds to other clubs & garner opinion against us

It's all very devious & spiteful - not to mention incredibly petty, childish & worryingly incompetent IMO

 

[Big Vern]

It reads to me that as long as we have some sort of commercial deal with a company that could be construed as a competitor to cinch then we can cite rule 17. Doesn’t matter the size of the deal just that conflict exists.

We’d be beyond mental to tell the SPFL we had an agreement like this if in fact on closer Inspection we didn’t

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?

 

[TerryMunro]

Could the conflicting contractual obligations be in monetary terms. Company x agreed to pay £x to display their name on Rangers shirt would it be unusual for this company to add on an agreement that no other company will be able to procure the same advertising for less amount?

 

[RockyFlintstone]

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.

Can’t believe these crooks are still running the game.

 

[Garthamlockbear]

Parasites running the game in Scotland

 

[Bryanmc]

Be prepared for the usual media lapdogs to portray big bad Rangers and talk points deduction
Very simple case of rule 17 is breached then we have absolutely no case to answer and will not wear or advertise there pish

 

[Corkinator]

We probably need to show the commercial agreement that exonerates us.

Why? It will be confidential.

 

[MarkD87]

OR if SPFL directors have instructed a third party to sell the rights to advertise on the champions’ shirt, when said directors have been left in no doubt that such an offer is outwith their gift.

Sorry, I don't mean for my comment to be misinterpreted.

Quite simply, that's not our issue. The rules give us rights not to do so, hence why we haven't done so. So I'm not considering that an issue because it won't be an outcome.

Your point is fair, but that's an SPFL and cinch issue, hence why I'm looking beyond that to understand any subsequent consequences, i.e. the right to terminate the deal.

 

[Corkinator]

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?

Still doesn’t explain no advertisement or cinch mom!