Putting 2 and 2 together we told them it was a conflict but they pursued it anyway and are asking for proof afterwards rather than try to resolve it at the time. They have taken a stance of calling our bluff and run roughshod over our concerns.
Rangers chief Stewart Robertson writes to chairmen as he asks for support in bitter row with SPFL bosses over cinch deal
- Thread starter BlueMeanie
- Start date
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
It wasn’t the cinch championship last season.
Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
And have potentially left themselves open to litigation on 2 fronts
Although we did raise immediate concerns. It seems to me these have simply been ignored and they pressed ahead with the deal. They are now retrospectively asking us to show them the contract. It’s a shocking way to conduct business in a members association and you have to wonder who gains from this rubbish deal being ramrodded through.
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
You reckon our e-mail might be in their spam folder?
The Shadow
Well-Known Member
These things happen all the time in the commercial world, which is why rule 17 is there in the first place.
Imagine Pepsi and had paid a football club top dollar for shirt sponsorship and ads all around the ground during matches etc
Then, the league signs up with Coca Cola and says that you must show Coke adverts around the stadium and have their badge on your sleeves etc
Would Pepsi be happy with that?
Imagine Pepsi and had paid a football club top dollar for shirt sponsorship and ads all around the ground during matches etc
Then, the league signs up with Coca Cola and says that you must show Coke adverts around the stadium and have their badge on your sleeves etc
Would Pepsi be happy with that?
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
We take this to court and win then we don't need to advertise cinch. Others can waive their rights.
Whether cinch would keep to the contract without our involvement is another matter.
GF1872
Well-Known Member
Great discussion.
HMS.Temple.Garden
Well-Known Member
the only place the SPFL are getting their proof is in a court of law.
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
Small coincidence between the two
The agency is based in Yorkshire as is Doncaster.
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
A wee bit off topic here but that’s the first time I’ve seen this phrase in print, the first time I’ve realised it’s “tow” and not “toe” and, obviously then, the first time I’ve realised it’s etymology!
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
Somebody will need to pay the Park group a bit of compensation here, if they actually agree in the first place.
shoulderpads
Well-Known Member
Maybe not, but it would surely help our case if, legal and ethical considerations allowing, we did.
In consequence, The SPFL would be seen clearly - by cinch, member clubs, and the footballing public - to be in the wrong.
If we can't or choose not to offer proof as seemingly requested by it, you just know the SPFL, and Jackson, will continue to counter with the refrain that our claims remain just that - claims - and the story will be that big bad Rangers are all mouth and no trousers again.
From what is in the public domain so far, we would appear to be in the right. Let's hope that, if necessary, little or no doubt is left about this, and it's the SPFL, not us, that remains on the back foot and having to justify its actions.
Last edited:
xd182
Well-Known Member
You got me Googling that... and it is actually "toe".
I also learned that this type of error is called a linguistic eggcorn.
"Eggcorn is an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect"
Clementime
Well-Known Member
Rangers are simply abiding by the law of a contract agreement.
We breech the agreement and we are accountable. Why would we do that?
The SPFL are an absolute disgrace, time and time again it seems they go out of their way to hinder our progress, or to put us at risk.
Whoever agreed this cinch contract is an enemy of Rangers.
We breech the agreement and we are accountable. Why would we do that?
The SPFL are an absolute disgrace, time and time again it seems they go out of their way to hinder our progress, or to put us at risk.
Whoever agreed this cinch contract is an enemy of Rangers.
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
My (wrong) explanation made more sense!
There are times less words make more sense.
fmp
Well-Known Member
I always thought it was toe and the internet seems to agree
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toe-the-line
He's probably there go to man since he's Lawwell's go to poodle. I get why the Record would do it given the club and Reach don't get on but not sure what Jackson thinks he will achieve by doing it.
like two wee giggly schoolboys.....and that fat t@rrier slob Maguire making out to be a vendetta with Doncaster in 2012. Their hatred for Rangers takes priority more than the facts which don't seem to matter as long as they can have a pop at us.
That is 100% the way we should go. Don't share our business with people we cannot trust
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
There was a conflict at the Euros when certain players, sponsored by other soft drinks, moved the coca cola bottles at press conferences.
Corkinator
Well-Known Member
Just take a step back here, just how toxic is tge relationship with the spl.and how power crazed are they?
imagine the epl acting like this against Liverpool or Man U and actually broadcasting it using phrases like “tow the line” it’s absolutely unbelievable.
These people are out and out bigoted rank amateurs.
The fact it looks like we’re correct and they want us to break their own rules is even more astonishing.
imagine the epl acting like this against Liverpool or Man U and actually broadcasting it using phrases like “tow the line” it’s absolutely unbelievable.
These people are out and out bigoted rank amateurs.
The fact it looks like we’re correct and they want us to break their own rules is even more astonishing.
bigy
Well-Known Member
I don't imagine Tomket would be worried about being associated with Audi. A cheap used car brand on the other hand...
Never forgive - never forget.
A meeting at Doncaster's request!
I and Association President John Andrews met with Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday night. The reason for the meeting which incidentally was at the request of Mr Doncaster, was for them to explain their position with regards to the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Inquiry.
From the outset they both made it clear that they thought that the SPL did everything by the book and that they had no further part to play in accordance with the advice they got from a Senior Counsel.
They also stated that they, the SPFL, were happy to have an Independent Review of Scottish Football as stated about three weeks ago after they elected their new Board. The problem with that is, no Independent Review is worth having unless it also agreed by the SFA, and so far Mr Regan and his cronies have not agreed to a Review.
Mr Doncaster made it very clear that the decision taken by LNS cannot be revisited, the decision to fine Sevco £250,000 is final. Mr McKenzie stressed that all the information held by the SPL was put before LNS, which included the proof of about 51 side letters. But what they cannot answer is, did the SFA act honestly with regards to LNS.
Mr Doncaster also agreed with us that the Five Way Agreement (FWA) was a barrier to Title stripping. That is the FWA that no-one outside if the signatories has actually seen. McKenzie and Doncaster actually admitted that in one of the early drafts of the agreement Title Stripping was one of the avenues that could be used as punishment to Sevco, not surprisingly Green, and apparently more so McCoist strongly opposed that route, so that clause was taken out.
That’s akin to a High Court Judge telling a convicted criminal that he could face twenty years in jail and the criminal saying I’m not having that. So the Judge says, well ok what about a fine of £250? That will be fine (excuse the pun) your honour.
You have to wonder, if the FWA was good for Scottish Football as a whole, why has it not been made public? According to McKenzie the five signatories would have to agree to that, and he said that wouldn’t happen, but he never told us just exactly who would be opposed to going public, I think they would all oppose it to protect themselves.
Interestingly the SPFL Board backed the call for an Independent Review as proposed by Peter Lawwell at Celtic Football Club, but not one club came out publically and supported Peter Lawwell before the Board went public, which was about three weeks after Peter’s statement.
McKenzie said that club chairmen were backing Celtic, but not in public. I think that proves the point the Bullying and Intimidation by the Sevco Support is actually working, I also think the comments from Ann Budge and Stewart Milne prove that too.
So where do we go from here? Well we’re not beaten yet. We have to force the SFA to back the Independent Review. The only way that can be done is by supporters putting pressure on their own clubs to call for it.
Doncaster claims that the SPFL do not have the power within their rules to strip titles, but the SFA do have that power. So honest supporters throughout the whole of Scottish Football must stand up to the Bullies and Intimidators and force action from your own club’s. This is not a Celtic v Rangers issue, this is Honest and Integrity v Bullies and Intimidators issue. Football has to win, but it can only win if the honest decent supporters unite to make it happen.
A meeting at Doncaster's request!
I had a meeting with Neil Doncaster and McKenzie.
Postby Joe O'Rourke » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:47 amI and Association President John Andrews met with Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday night. The reason for the meeting which incidentally was at the request of Mr Doncaster, was for them to explain their position with regards to the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Inquiry.
From the outset they both made it clear that they thought that the SPL did everything by the book and that they had no further part to play in accordance with the advice they got from a Senior Counsel.
They also stated that they, the SPFL, were happy to have an Independent Review of Scottish Football as stated about three weeks ago after they elected their new Board. The problem with that is, no Independent Review is worth having unless it also agreed by the SFA, and so far Mr Regan and his cronies have not agreed to a Review.
Mr Doncaster made it very clear that the decision taken by LNS cannot be revisited, the decision to fine Sevco £250,000 is final. Mr McKenzie stressed that all the information held by the SPL was put before LNS, which included the proof of about 51 side letters. But what they cannot answer is, did the SFA act honestly with regards to LNS.
Mr Doncaster also agreed with us that the Five Way Agreement (FWA) was a barrier to Title stripping. That is the FWA that no-one outside if the signatories has actually seen. McKenzie and Doncaster actually admitted that in one of the early drafts of the agreement Title Stripping was one of the avenues that could be used as punishment to Sevco, not surprisingly Green, and apparently more so McCoist strongly opposed that route, so that clause was taken out.
That’s akin to a High Court Judge telling a convicted criminal that he could face twenty years in jail and the criminal saying I’m not having that. So the Judge says, well ok what about a fine of £250? That will be fine (excuse the pun) your honour.
You have to wonder, if the FWA was good for Scottish Football as a whole, why has it not been made public? According to McKenzie the five signatories would have to agree to that, and he said that wouldn’t happen, but he never told us just exactly who would be opposed to going public, I think they would all oppose it to protect themselves.
Interestingly the SPFL Board backed the call for an Independent Review as proposed by Peter Lawwell at Celtic Football Club, but not one club came out publically and supported Peter Lawwell before the Board went public, which was about three weeks after Peter’s statement.
McKenzie said that club chairmen were backing Celtic, but not in public. I think that proves the point the Bullying and Intimidation by the Sevco Support is actually working, I also think the comments from Ann Budge and Stewart Milne prove that too.
So where do we go from here? Well we’re not beaten yet. We have to force the SFA to back the Independent Review. The only way that can be done is by supporters putting pressure on their own clubs to call for it.
Doncaster claims that the SPFL do not have the power within their rules to strip titles, but the SFA do have that power. So honest supporters throughout the whole of Scottish Football must stand up to the Bullies and Intimidators and force action from your own club’s. This is not a Celtic v Rangers issue, this is Honest and Integrity v Bullies and Intimidators issue. Football has to win, but it can only win if the honest decent supporters unite to make it happen.
They would certainly cancel it or renegotiate it then we will see in real terms the value of Rangers to the cabal.
The police need too investigate the agency who will be getting £500.000 for doing Jack .....Shit maybe they will find out who is getting the "Brown Envelopes" at the end of the line???
Word of warning ...... Don't use the same police force that are investigating the SNP fraud regarding missing funds, as this seems to have turned into a "who dunit" never to be revealed?
Word of warning ...... Don't use the same police force that are investigating the SNP fraud regarding missing funds, as this seems to have turned into a "who dunit" never to be revealed?
No they don't.
The SPFL have went to a third party to go and find them a sponsor. They have agreed to a commission based on the value of any deal. GV6 has done nothing wrong.
The SPFL are the ones in the wrong here.
GF1872
Well-Known Member
Yes, “paranoia” and “yes there was” are strong arguments.
stonewall Jackson
Well-Known Member
The proof required is contained in their own constitution. We would have documented evidence of advising them of this conflict or we wouldn’t have acted in the way we have.
Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
If there was no substance to our concern with respect to a conflict then we would have a problem. But so do they as they have not taken into account our concerns which raises issues about governance and management. SPFL have been under pressure to get sponsorship and have flown into this regardless of members concerns and incurring a ridiculously large fee. The real question may be whether or not the other clubs give a damn.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
100% BK.
We told them we had a conflict before they signed the deal.
Negligence at least, fraudulence could be a possibility. Again.
wontoofree
Well-Known Member
Having been in the Engineering business, the one thing I learned early in my career was to put everything in writing, so yes, I would expect it to be done. However, I was merely asking if anyone could confirm it.
norm1890
Well-Known Member
Spot on. Media should be asking serious questions other than just the bad Rangers angle.
BrooklynBlue
Well-Known Member
Any reasonable individual saw the issues we raised. Instead, there were too many Billy Bowie’s, aided by a media spin, who cared not for the message but only for the messenger.
It’s a shame a few of our ‘supporters’, such as yourself, fell for it. I see you’re still falling for it now…
Blutoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is the likely reason, not a conflict of interest with existing sponsors.
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
Many organisations are very sensitive when it comes to competitors. When I was auditing, you couldn't be on the IBM audit and use a Compaq computer. You couldn't be on the Philip Morris audit and smoke Camels. You couldn't be on the VF (think Wrangler jeans) audit and wear Levis.
Porto Loyal
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't surprise me in future to see Lawwell pitch up as President of the SFA or Chairman of the SPFL
bluesntwos
Member
They sponsored the Leagues not just the Premiership. Like I said, the contracts must have allowed it all.
Nakedbear
Well-Known Member
I meant maybe there is/was a deal with Audi that would conflict.
Corkinator
Well-Known Member
I wish at the end of his letter he said “Rangers now see the matter as closed”
Boom!
Boom!
rayrangers
Well-Known Member
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure any level of conspiracy level digging is needed here. It's a fairly black and white legal matter.
Rangers advised the SPFL that they had existing legal commercial agreements that meant they couldn't meet the requirements of the Cinch deal and that the league rules allow for that.
SPFL signed anyway and presumably agreed a deal with Cinch that didn't account for Rangers position.
Rangers maintained their position in practice.
SPFL will need to take them to court to establish the final position and whether Rangers are legally bound to comply or not.
1288Bear
Well-Known Member
Wasn't exactly a link to celtic.
They were appointed by the SPFL late Jan/early Feb and included an item in the news section of their website confirming that appointment. That item included a picture of celtic, who were still the reigning (soon to be deposed) champions at the time, with the SPFL trophy.
Whether the owners of GV6 have leanings towards the dark side or not I don't know but this was certainly not evidence of a direct link to celtic.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was a link as recent history shows there almost always is.
not the agency’s issue. They would’ve been asked to do a job and did it on agreed terms.
that it’s against rules is not their issue
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
Yes Norm, if the SMSM were truly objective there is another potentially significant story here.
Read the club and Stewart Robertson's statements during it. No one exaggerated what was said.
No they're not. Just opinions.
I would assume that if we're not prepared to put it on the shirt or advertising boards then we won't be putting it on the flag.
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Match Thread Rangers v Kilmarnock - 13:00 Sunday - Sky Sports
- Latest: wee bud's pit boots
-
-