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

weewinnin said:
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
Click to expand...
Even if we have that, it’ll receive the same audience as our dossier did and we know how that went. It’s round two of the SPFL vs Rangers. For round 2, see round 1.
 
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...
I was just about to ask if the rules state proof must be available on request. If we don’t have to give proof and are well within our rights then they can bolt, especially if it would be revealing confidential info.

also, the asking of proof is questioning our integrity. Of course, plenty other clubs fans will back them, but why would we state that there’s a conflict if there isn’t?

If the SPFL is running the game for all clubs, why would a club just decide to stop wearing a sponsor? Governing bodies aren’t supposed to be at war with member clubs. The fact that they are most of the time shows they’re not fit for purpose.
 
It’s time to clear out the governing bodies regardless what happens with cinch. Imagine a body being at war with its biggest club. Imagine the outcry and screams of victimisation if the governing body was at war with celtc. Regardless of anything else, we need a new start to ensure the game in this country is being run fairly for all clubs.
 
SPFL Breaking News

Peter Liewell will be taking over from Neil Dungcaster with immediate affect.we would like to thank Neil for fucking up scottish football for the last ten years ,and his hard work in keeping those orange bastards down but alas he failed in his mission for the Terry Munro he goes with my heartfelt thanks Murdo Mctarrier.
 
Yosser said:
We probably need to show the commercial agreement that exonerates us.
Click to expand...
Corkinator said:
Why? It will be confidential.
Click to expand...

According to the DR, "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", which suggests that Doncaster and MacLennan have asked us to prove the conflict between the cinch deal and one of our own and earlier making.

Confidentiality no doubt precludes us going into details but it would be to our benefit if we could, within reason, oblige the SPFL.
 
shoulderpads said:
According to the DR, "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", which suggests that Doncaster and MacLennan have asked us to prove the conflict between the cinch deal and one of our own and earlier making.

Confidentiality no doubt precludes us going into details but it would be to our benefit if we could, within reason, oblige the SPFL.
Click to expand...
We don’t have to “prove” we are not obliged to not to promote cinch
Regulation 17 of the SPFL regs states that the SPFL board have to canvas all clubs to check if any new sponsorship deal conflicts with any clubs existing contractual obligations. Robertson points out that the cabal did not do this and are therefore in breach of their own regulations. It is for them to prove that they complied with the articles of Regulation 17
 
Our contracts will be commercially sensitive so I don't imagine we would want (or need) to share them.

I know people are putting 2 + 2 together to get Parks, but it could just as easily be Tomket Tires. Tomket market themselves as an 'affordable, high quality' tyre. I doubt very much that they'd want to be closely associated with a brand which sells 'cheap' used cars.
 
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...
I’m hoping the spl take is to court to prove it and it’s then shown in court and they’ve spent hundreds of thousands plus our fees in seeing a piece of paper we could have shown them as a courtesy.
 
Texas ranger said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it’s written into law then there’s nothing to be done. The only way I see it panning out is cinch get a reduced deal with no Rangers or tge pull out and sue the spl.
maybe the spl didn’t know Rangers had a conflict of interest, the email may have inadvertently went into the junk folder!
 
IrvineLoyal said:
Was so predictable that crater faced cockwomble Jackson would be along to bat for the SPFL.



The mans a disgusting piece of slime
Click to expand...

His hotline to Doncaster is just about the only ‘source’ he has left these days, not surprising he has a vested interest in defending them at every turn in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence of their incompetence.
 
Bluebear72 said:
We don’t have to “prove” we are not obliged to not to promote cinch
Regulation 17 of the SPFL regs states that the SPFL board have to canvas all clubs to check if any new sponsorship deal conflicts with any clubs existing contractual obligations. Robertson points out that the cabal did not do this and are therefore in breach of their own regulations. It is for them to prove that they complied with the articles of Regulation 17
Click to expand...

I don't think that's correct.


“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.
 
sw26 said:
His hotline to Doncaster is just about the only ‘source’ he has left these days, not surprising he has a vested interest in defending them at every turn in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence of their incompetence.
Click to expand...



I really hope i live to see the day the scumbag is unemployable and has no platform.



Guys like him are partly responsible for the state scottish football is in.
 
A predictable story from Jackson that many posters on this thread predicted.

Call me a cynic but surely the email correspondence we sent contained the proof and facts, what I’m hoping for is that the SPL have replied to us.
 
This situation is quite poisonous. The fact that the SPFL wrote to all clubs copied the press is a very poor way of behaving towards a member club. Rule 17 is there to protect member clubs. If Rangers were to implement the Cinch deal we would be in breach of another contract. This is not difficult to understand.

We have few friends though. Even now after they have had time to reflect on last year. Scotland is a sad wee parochial place.
 
Kentbear said:
I believe Cinch are owned by BCA who own webuyanycar, so are a used car from Cinch will come from WBAC, not something i would be touching.
Click to expand...
Me neither.
Had a look at companies house. 2 directors, one being Timothy Giles Lambert.
Timothy is directly involved (director/finance officer) at a large amount (50+) of these type of auto companies - British Car Auctions, Scottish Motor Auctions, We Buy Any Car, and variations of these and others.
 
Why can't the journalists here for once take an objective view? Rangers are within rights according to Law. As usual the sycophants choose to ignore the bigger issues of corruption within Scottish football. I guarantee if someone were to dig into this deal, certain links will pop up to individuals who already have previous for dodgy stuff.

Just what is it that prevents any journalist looking deeper? Afraid that they won't get any exclusives with their beloved team?
 
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...
I concur with @GodStruth.
The SPFL are looking to bring in a deal for members. I'd suspect any competent broker who's managing the deal would be aware of any constraints, so then ensure they'd meet those challenges before signing the papers

It seems that they didn't, despite ourselves alering to a potential issue, a decision (that's the important part, this just wasn't incompetence through a mismanaged process, this was deliberate) was made to continue with the deal.

As others have said, this is now a case of emotive, damage limitation

If I was Cinch and wasn't aware I'd be fuming.
Another VERY Interesting point is the relationship with Shifty and Cinch, potentially, Shifty just got who he knew to do us a solid to bring in sponsorship and get the membership of their backs

Then all the rhetoric about biggest deal blah, blah,,,


In some ways like sellik trying to be the City Group works team
 
No other clubs in the same position as Rangers re existing commercial deals? Or all content to tow the line and let SPFL and Rangers fight it out.

At the very least, there should be questions from all clubs about why due process was not followed and the deal signed while questions had been raised by Rangers. I suppose the clubs are saying, ‘who cares, show me the money’ but I assume cinch will be reluctant to pay out until this issue is resolved.
 
They created this scenario with their inability to provide league sponsorship for the past season or so. Now thy have finally managed to do their job, albeit by having to pay another company £100k a season to do so, they expect Rangers to dishonour their agreed contracts to suit for the minimal amount that it will bring to us.
 
bluesntwos said:
Actually, we were already sponsored by 32Red (circa 2014) before the league arranged sponsorship with Ladbrokes (circa 2015). The details of the contractual arrangements are what matters I suppose.
Click to expand...
As I said 32 Red must have been ok about Ladbrokes being on our sleeve. This is not complicated. If there is a league Sponsor then all clubs have the right to inform the SPFL of any of their current sponsors object.
 
Div1872 said:
Doncaster MacLennan and McKenzie due to their hatred of Rangers have ignored the issue Rangers flagged Pre contract

Sums up the incompetence from Doncaster and Co

Also trying to hide the actual deal broker and the £500k costs to bring the deal to the table

The question from Stewart Robertson should have been why are we paying £400k pa to this clown Doncaster who couldn’t close a door never mind a lucrative sponsorship deal

We had no league sponsor given Steven Gerrard is in the league ffs

Doncaster is a joke
Click to expand...
Why are we paying an agent/agency £100k per year ON TOP of Doncaster’s £400k?
I thought Doncaster’s fee was for doing the job.
 
High Society said:
As I said 32 Red must have been ok about Ladbrokes being on our sleeve. This is not complicated. If there is a league Sponsor then all clubs have the right to inform the SPFL of any of their current sponsors object.
Click to expand...
I think that the fact that Ladbrokes were our Stadium bookmaker at the time the SPFL deal was announced and continued to be until about 2019 suggests the contractual arrangements were all in harmony.
 
Scoot1975 said:
will we have to provide our proof,i hope we do and get it up these c.unts
Click to expand...

Why should we share our potentially business sensitive info with people who have links to CeItic.

Give them the equivalent of what would be included on a press release, the bear bones, they want more info, let them sue for it.

We tried nice and it resulted in us losing the right to try and win / stop our opponents winning a title on the field of play, fućk nice.
 
bigy said:
Our contracts will be commercially sensitive so I don't imagine we would want (or need) to share them.

I know people are putting 2 + 2 together to get Parks, but it could just as easily be Tomket Tires. Tomket market themselves as an 'affordable, high quality' tyre. I doubt very much that they'd want to be closely associated with a brand which sells 'cheap' used cars.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there Audi badges on the "advert wall" behind players/managers being interviewed in pre-season?
 
If Cinch pull out or are thinking of pulling out, it is clear we are the only show in town. They want their brand on the Premier clubs kit, behind Jermaine Defoe at press conferences, on display when world icon Gerrard speaks...if they do pull out, I'd say Bisgrove might have an easy deal to make exclusively for us
 
Regardless of our stand , that £500k commission be much better served at the smaller clubs than at some agency no? What are we paying dumbcaster £400k a year for?
 
bluesntwos said:
Actually, we were already sponsored by 32Red (circa 2014) before the league arranged sponsorship with Ladbrokes (circa 2015). The details of the contractual arrangements are what matters I suppose.
Click to expand...
We weren’t in the top division so that deal was in place when we entered. Did Ladbroke sponsor all divisions, I can’t remember? If so maybe 32 red didn’t have anything in their contract. So it wasn’t an issue. Either way it wasn’t an issue with 32Red. It is an issue now as a sponsor doesn’t want us to advertise a rival.
 
Arkanoid said:
:shh:If Cinch pull out or are thinking of pulling out, it is clear we are the only show in town. They want their brand on the Premier clubs kit, behind Jermaine Defoe at press conferences, on display when world icon Gerrard speaks...if they do pull out, I'd say Bisgrove might have an easy deal to make exclusively for us
Click to expand...

Nip it in the bud.

Offer to forego our share of the pot, giving the other clubs more £££ :rolleyes:
I’m sure the sponsor / intermediary will be cool with that. They probably don’t need Rangers anyway, worked so well for them in 2012.

It’s a cinch. :shh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top