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

[Scott7 5,088]

3 hours ago, compo said:

It's a wonder in these woke times we don't hav the Duncan Stanners stand or the Stanners award for tit of the week there must be very few worse than him ever to pull on the blue shirt  .

Valentine.

[Gonzo79 13,514]

3 hours ago, compo said:

It's a wonder in these woke times we don't hav the Duncan Stanners stand or the Stanners award for tit of the week

The Ian Black Stand.  Two birds with one stone.

[compo 6,043]

37 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

Valentine.

Aye he was another bobby dazzler 

[Uilleam 5,368]

Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel......

 

Cinch executive worked for Scots football chairman

Greig Cameron

Saturday September 25 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cinch-executive-worked-for-scots-football-chairman-zprqvmfw8

 

A senior executive at an online car dealership involved in a sponsorship row between Rangers and Scotland’s football chiefs used to work for the chairman of the Scottish league.

Robert Bridge was hired as the chief customer officer at Telegraph Media Group (TMG) in 2016 and reported directly to Murdoch MacLennan while he was running the business.

MacLennan now chairs the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). A five-year, £8 million package with Cinch, a car sales business, was announced by the SPFL in June.

Bridge was pictured with Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, at the unveiling of the partnership. There was embarrassment the following month as Rangers, the Premiership champions, said they could not comply with the arrangements as the club felt it broke the SPFL’s rules. Those state the rules do not need to be followed “if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned”.

Rangers also said they had pointed this out before the SPFL signed the sponsorship contact. Rangers are refusing to allow Cinch branding on team shirts or on advertising boards.

Douglas Park, chairman of Rangers, owns Park’s of Hamilton, one of the largest privately owned motor dealership groups in Scotland. He believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his company and Rangers.

Concerns have also been raised an external agency would receive a fee of £500,000 for brokering the Cinch deal.

MacLennan, who it is understood played no part in the commercial negotiations with Cinch, wrote to the other 41 SPFL clubs expressing his annoyance with the situation.

Park won a legal ruling stopping arbitration proceedings to resolve the situation and which instead sees the dispute being heard in the courts.

Earlier this week it was suggested by Lord Keen of Elie QC that Cinch approached Rangers to discuss potential commercial opportunities prior to announcing the SPFL deal.

Rangers denied negotiations had taken place which could have led to Ibrox being renamed but acknowledged there had been contact.

Rangers previously raised concerns about MacLennan having a conflict of interest in his SPFL position as he was the chairman of Independent News and Media. At the time that company included Dermot Desmond, Celtic’s largest shareholder, and Denis O’Brien, another Celtic shareholder, among its investors.

MacLennan, 72, stepped down as the TMG chief executive in June 2017 but remained deputy chairman. He became chairman of the SPFL in July 2017.

Bridge had worked at Yahoo before he joined TMG in the spring of 2016. At the time of the appointment it was announced he would be reporting directly to MacLennan who said: “Robert Bridge will have a crucial role in developing and offering new products to the customers who lie at the heart of our business.

“I am delighted he will be joining our senior team.”

After a brief spell with a maker of children’s cosmetics Bridge joined Cinch in January this year as its chief customer officer.

The SPFL, Cinch and Rangers all declined to comment. It is understood the Rangers hierarchy still have doubts over the governance arrangements at the SPFL.

 

Doncaster and Bridge about to take the floor

 

Well, at least it's no' Masonic, Senga.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Uilleam

[ian1964 10,367]

[Uilleam 5,368]

Now, if I remember correctly, the cinch sponsorship deal was 'brokered' by an outfit known as GV6 Sports Marketing, which is to receive a cool £100K/pa, for 5 years, for its efforts on the SPFL's behalf.

One of the head honchos at GV6 is a guy called Steve Maddren, who also happens to have worked for McLennan in the past.

 

Is this murky, or is it me?

 

 

[Gonzo79 13,514]

23 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Is this murky, or is it me?

The former.  

[RANGERRAB 3,246]

Don’t forget also that the Cinch deal is worth less than the previous Ladbrokes deal. Even the numpties running Hearts,Hibz & Aberdeen have sussed this out presumably one of the reasons they’re having the ‘review’

Edited September 25, 2021 by RANGERRAB

[PoohBear 1,052]

.

Edited September 25, 2021 by PoohBear

[Uilleam 5,368]

The SFA loses in court to Douglas Park, and, 

 

"Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known", 

which is nice. 

 

Sorry, but this report is from The Old Currant Bun:

 

Rangers chairman Douglas Park claims second victory in legal dispute over SPFL’s £8m cinch sponsorship

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch.
The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, obtained an interim interdict to prevent the SFA proceeding with an arbitration process involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch.

The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.
Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.
The SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the SFA addressed the Inner House of the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest civil appeal court.
The SFA’s legal team told judges Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect.
Lawyers for the SFA believed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because it wasn’t a member of the SPFL.

Parks of Hamilton’s legal team told the court that the decision to grant interim interdict was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s’ branding.
They also argued that Parks of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process.

After hearing the submissions, the judges agreed with the submissions made by Parks of Hamilton and refused to overturn the lower court’s decision.
Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known.
 

Earlier in the year, a Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision to grant the interim interdict saying that the SFA had no other option but to involve it in the arbitration process.
The spokesperson added: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.
“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.
“This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.”

At another hearing in the case, the SPFL’s lawyer, Lord Keen of Elie QC told the court that bosses at Rangers had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’
However, a spokesman at the club said no negotiations took place.

On Wednesday, advocate Garry Borland QC, who is acting for the SFA, said it was wrong for interim interdict to be granted.
He said that laws surrounding arbitration showed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a role in the process.
He added: “In the present context Rangers Football Club Ltd are members of the SPFL and they are therefore required by virtue of article 196 to comply with the SPFL rules.
“The petitioner, Parks of Hamilton, is of course not a member of the SPFL and is hence is under no obligation to comply with the SPFL rules.
“Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA.
“Parks of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Parks of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.”

Gavin MacColl QC, for Parks and Hamilton, said that the commercial issues brought up by the matter meant that it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process.
He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox.
He added: “An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations.

“In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.”

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Carloway said he and his colleagues would issue a written judgement explaining their reasoning.
He added: “We will give our reasons in writing in early course - hopefully within the next week or so.
“But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.”

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7875320/rangers-douglas-park-win-legal-dispute-spfl-cinch-sponsorship/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter