Jump to content

 

 

Rangers slammed by SPFL chief MacLennan over cinch stand-off in letter to clubs


Recommended Posts

You just hope we have a leg or two to stand on here. I reckon there is conflict of interest with cinch and Parks of Hamilton (?) and the SPFL rules have a word about that somewhere?

 

I wouldn`t be surprised to see the tune wings towards: "because of Rangers contesting the sponsorship deal, we have to divert money due to clubs to that legal case."

Edited by der Berliner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing made public so far explains or justifies any conflict being fought in public - a sure sign there more to this than has been revealed. The most interesting aspect for me is it was the SPFL that felt it necessary to go public. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

Stewart Robertson writes to all clubs in response to MacClellans letter. Some interesting points raised and leaves Doncaster out on a limb.

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7504868/rangers-stewart-robertson-letter-clubs-spfl-cinch-row/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

Smells like checkmate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifted from FF:

 

The SPFL have asked the SFA to arbitrate their simmering row with Rangers over an £8million cinch sponsorship deal after warning clubs that the dispute could hamper their ability to pay out prize money.

The Ibrox club are in legal dispute with league chiefs after refusing to promote the £1.6million a year league tie-up with the online car firm on their jerseys or within their stadium.

Rangers insist that rule I7 of the SPFL states that clubs are 'not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractural obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned.'

Ibrox managing director Stewart Robertson claims the league were also informed that Rangers 'would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation' and accused the central body of blowing £500,000 of club cash on agency fees.

Despite weeks of discussions, however, the two sides have failed to sort out their differences.

And the SPFL board have now 'reluctantly' referred the matter to the SFA for independent arbitration amidst fears cinch could rip up the deal and walk away, depriving clubs of revenue.

In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: 'The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL's relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.

'At their opening league match, none of that club's players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.

'Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.

'However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.

'The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL's fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.

'This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.

'Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.

'However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.'

Writing to clubs last week Rangers MD Robertson insisted the champions were within their rights to take issue with the £8million contract, writing: '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.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a laugh.

  

The Daily Bedlam finally has real bedlam to report. 

 

SPFL asks the SFA to intervene in their sponsorship row with Rangers after warning the champions their refusal to promote the league's £1.6m-a-year deal with car firm cinch could affect their distribution of prize money

The SPFL have asked the SFA to arbitrate their sponsorship row with Rangers

The Ibrox club are refusing to promote the £1.6million a year tie-up with cinch

Despite weeks of discussions, the two sides have failed to sort out the problem

SPFL board have 'reluctantly' referred case to the SFA for an independent ruling

By STEPHEN MCGOWAN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 15:23, 9 August 2021 | UPDATED: 15:28, 9 August 2021

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9876931/SPFL-asks-SFA-intervene-sponsorship-row-Rangers.html

 

The SPFL have asked the SFA to arbitrate their simmering row with Rangers over an £8million cinch sponsorship deal after warning clubs that the dispute could hamper their ability to pay out prize money.

The Ibrox club are in legal dispute with league chiefs after refusing to promote the £1.6million a year league tie-up with the online car firm on their jerseys or within their stadium.

Rangers insist that rule I7 of the SPFL states that clubs are 'not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractural obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned.'

 

Ibrox managing director Stewart Robertson claims the league were also informed that Rangers 'would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation' and accused the central body of blowing £500,000 of club cash on agency fees.

 

Despite weeks of discussions, however, the two sides have failed to sort out their differences.

And the SPFL board have now 'reluctantly' referred the matter to the SFA for independent arbitration amidst fears cinch could rip up the deal and walk away, depriving clubs of revenue.

In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: 'The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL's relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.

'At their opening league match, none of that club's players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.

 

'Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.

'However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.

'The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL's fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.

'This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.

'Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.

'However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.'

Rangers hit back at the SPFL by claiming they told them about their concerns over the £8m cinch sponsorship deal before it was signed

Writing to clubs last week Rangers MD Robertson insisted the champions were within their rights to take issue with the £8million contract, writing: '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.'

 

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

'However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.

That's a little concerning. I hope that the Board know what they're doing.

 

On 03/08/2021 at 15:38, der Berliner said:

 I reckon there is conflict of interest with cinch and Parks of Hamilton (?)

Or Central Car Auctions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.