Jump to content

 

 

SPFL/cinch and Rangers


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ian1964 said:

Brutal statement from Park's of Hamilton about the Cinch deal and court process

They are taking no prisoners here.


Statement from Parks of Hamilton Ltd

A spokesperson for Parks of Hamilton Ltd said: “We were not surprised to learn from the media announcement last night that the SPFL have finally acknowledged Rangers legitimately engaged rule i7 in June of last year and thus, vindicated the stance held by the club for over a year. It is not for us to speculate as to why the SPFL leadership sought to ignore their own rules for so long.

“The fact that the SPFL prevaricated and continued to stall an arbitration process they themselves initiated in August last year, and which was ruled upon by the court of appeal in October, underlined the weakness of the case they truly had. Were it not for our interim interdict, it is clear their strategy was to try and bully one of their members and shareholders; a strategy which they have employed on numerous occasions.

“Throughout the last year, Park’s have kept their counsel as the SPFL leadership insulted us and misled the SFA, their member clubs, their title sponsor, and various other stakeholders in Scottish football.

“We have a long standing and proud association with Scottish football, and it was entirely wrong that we were compelled to take the SFA to court because the SPFL decided to abuse the SFA’s arbitration process. We believe that the SPFL and members of its leadership have brought the game in to disrepute and have failed, as have the SPFL as an organisation, to act with the utmost good faith towards their members.

“The SFA must carry out an independent investigation into this issue which has cost all parties involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. Despite being awarded expenses in court, Park’s will not recover all their legal fees nor be compensated for the reputational damage caused by the SPFL.

“Finally, the glaring omission from the SPFL’s statement was an apology. The SPFL leadership owe their members an apology, they owe Park's an apology, they owe the SFA an apology and they also owe an apology to Rangers. Unfortunately, they seem to lack any accountability and would rather spend their members money than admit their failures.”

 

 

 

Well, Munich it ain't. 

Splendid stuff, and it makes a welcome change from the anodyne 'statements'  we have, too often, suffered in the past. 

 

I do wonder where Parks/Rangers go from here, as it would be shameful to let things slip now. The problem, of course, is that of ploughing the lone furrow; the rest have been bribed, or blackmailed, or browbeaten, or buggered bow-legged by the fhilth cabal, so it is difficult to gauge  support for future manoeuvres. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

The problem, of course, is that of ploughing the lone furrow; the rest have been bribed, or blackmailed, or browbeaten, or buggered bow-legged by the fhilth cabal

This is why I will be sticking to my 'not giving money to other clubs' guns.  

 

We have the power to land a fatal blow on several parties.  Not that we'll use it but principles are important.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

This is why I will be sticking to my 'not giving money to other clubs' guns.  

 

We have the power to land a fatal blow on several parties.  Not that we'll use it but principles are important.  

Bridgebuilding and bygones left as bygones not on the agenda, then?

I can't say I disagree. 

The Club,however, should, at least, remain open to suggestions/approaches from any other disaffected or victimised Clubs, or engage where it sees a clear benefit/advantage to do so. 

 

The statement from Parks is really about Parks, subtext:  'You can fuck with Rangers but don't you dare fuck with my family and our business'.  

On the other hand, I suppose that a separate entity can go in a little harder.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

I suppose that a separate entity can go in a little harder.

They can do what they want.  The court cases would only be constantly delayed anyway.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

They can do what they want.  The court cases would only be constantly delayed anyway.  

I think he's referring to Parks being the separate entity in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think he's referring to Parks being the separate entity in this case.

Aye, you're right.  Think the bitterness hit my brain before common sense did.  

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.