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

[ian1964 10,723]

I was looking for this thread but couldn't find it, I went and started a separate thread!!!!, admin should delete my thread.

[Uilleam 5,929]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

I was looking for this thread but couldn't find it, I went and started a separate thread!!!!, admin should delete my thread.

The more exposure for Rangers' victories -esp those in Court- the better.

[Uilleam 5,929]

The Gherald's take is below. 

 

'Garry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". '

 

The Hearing was before Lord Carloway (et alia) the Justice who, i I r c, declared, (in)famously, citing that very commodity, 'common sense', that EBTs represented emoluments, and thus should be taxed. 

An interesting tactic, then, from the SFA's man. 

 

20th October

 

SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship

By Martin Williams  @Martin1WilliamsSenior News Reporter

SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship

 

  

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19660786.sfa-pay-price-rangers-chairman-douglas-park-wins-legal-dispute-spfl-8m-cinch-sponsorship/

 

THE Scottish Football Association is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL).

In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club.

But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch.

But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge.

Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case.

The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards.

The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships.

The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict.

The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process.

The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates.

But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party.

Garry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense".

 

But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved.

He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position".

He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute."

He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. 

 

Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk".

Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended.

A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail.

It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest.

After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach".

It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL".

The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach.

“The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor.

“Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.”

Last month, judge Lord Braid heard advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC - who has been representing the SPFL - say that bosses at Rangers Football Club Ltd spoke to chiefs at cinch about renaming the club’s stadium earlier this year.

The lawyer told the Court of Session that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’ The club denied the claim.

Following the hearing, a statement from Rangers read: “Cinch approached Rangers to discuss commercial opportunities in early 2021.

“Rangers provided information on what opportunities might become available. This is common practice for our commercial team.

“At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers. Contrary to the SPFL’s claims, no ‘negotiations’ took place."

[compo 7,037]

Mon auld Duggie

[CammyF 8,081]

The opening paragraph tells you all you need to know about the state of journalism in Scotland

 

The SFA aren't being "forced" to play Parks and Rangers legal fees. The challenged a ruling and lost, the consequences means they are liable for the costs.

 

Price for not knowing your own rules really. 

[RANGERRAB 3,657]

One wonders if anyone at the SPFL or SFA will accept responsibility for this costly defeat & resign their from their lucrative positions ?

sadly I think we know the answer already

[CammyF 8,081]

[Uilleam 5,929]

FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2021]

CSIH 61 P639/21

Lord President

Lord Woolman

Lord Pentland

 

OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD PRESIDENT in the Reclaiming Motion by PARK’S OF HAMILTON (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Petitioners and Respondents against THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATON LIMITED Respondents and Reclaimers THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Interested Parties for Judicial Review of a failure by the respondents to comply with their Articles of Association, interdict and interdict ad interim 

 

Petitioners and Respondents:MacColl QC; Brodies LLP

Respondents and Reclaimers:Borland QC; BTO Solicitors LLP

Interested Parties:DM Thomson QC; Anderson Strathern LLP

 

20 October 2021

 

Introduction

 

[1] The SFA reclaim (appeal) the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, dated 23 August 2021. He granted an interim interdict which prohibits the SFAfrom appointing an arbitral  tribunal in a dispute between the Scottish Professional Football League and Rangers, without having first issued a Secretary’s Notice to the petitioners. The issue is whether the petitioners have a prima facie case based upon the SFA’s Articles of Association.

 

Blah, blah, blah........

 

[20] There is at least a prima facie case. It is impossible to find fault in the Lord Ordinary’s approach. The reclaiming motion must be refused.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csih61.pdf?sfvrsn=f0711814_1

[Scott7 6,004]

39 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

There is at least a prima facie case.

A broad hint to SFA/SPFL?  Or in legalese, “jack it in, now lads”

[Scott7 6,004]

44 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Blah, blah, blah........

Sorry, but would you translate that from the Swedish, please?