Douglas Park Wins Legal Dispute Over SPFL Cinch Deal

[ian1964 10,761]

 

[ian1964 10,761]

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.

Gerry 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."

[ian1964 10,761]

 

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

Perverse incentives exist.

 

This is worse than previously imagined.

[der Berliner 3,808]

How sweet.

 

Obviously, "Scottish football and all those wee clubs will have to pay" for Rangers being so naughty and make a stand ... 

[CammyF 8,385]

If this wasn't Scotland and the SFA, you'd say that article was unbelievable - a sad reflection of Scoland and Scottish Football.

 

 

[26th of foot 6,119]

2 hours ago, ian1964 said:

 

The article highlighted by Jonny McFarlane is from Saturday's Times. It was penned by Ewing Grahame.

 

The piece is more than a spoiler, it is obscuration. Ewing Grahame was chosen because he is another shill for Sellik.

 

Ewing graham was the Herald's Chief Football Writer in 2003. Rangers faced Stuttghart in the Champions League that year. Grahame traveled on the Rangers team flight to Germany, a member of the official party. On the day of the game he became tired and emotional. He missed the kick-off, arrived in the press box and slumped into a deep stupor. His submitted copy bore no resemblance to the match. He went back to sleep and missed the provided coach leaving the stadium for the Airport. The Rangers flight missed the allocated slot and, was delayed for over two hours. 

 

Rangers made a formal complaint as to his unacceptable behaviour and, the Herald sacked him. Twenty years on, Ewing continues his great hatred.

[Uilleam 5,963]

One has to ask, on what possible grounds could the SPFL sue Rangers, when it is perfectly clear that the fault lies with Peter's Friends, viz. Doncaster and the rest of that gaggle of place men, brown nosers, time servers, and downright incompetents, who 'run' scottish Fitba' (aye, into the ground the more perspicacious observer may surmise).

It seems  clear that Rangers had a pre-existing contractual obligation, which, as it had advised the clown show at Hampden, precluded it from engaging with Cinch. 

A 'class action'? Seeing the word 'class' and 'SPFL' in the same sentence made me laugh. 

 

[CammyF 8,385]

19 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

One has to ask, on what possible grounds could the SPFL sue Rangers, when it is perfectly clear that the fault lies with Peter's Friends, viz. Doncaster and the rest of that gaggle of place men, brown nosers, time servers, and downright incompetents, who 'run' scottish Fitba' (aye, into the ground the more perspicacious observer may surmise).

It seems  clear that Rangers had a pre-existing contractual obligation, which, as it had advised the clown show at Hampden, precluded it from engaging with Cinch. 

A 'class action'? Seeing the word 'class' and 'SPFL' in the same sentence made me laugh. 

 

You also have to wonder what lengths SPFL and member clubs will go to ensure that there are no "stress points" in the ongoing contract.

[Uilleam 5,963]

8 minutes ago, CammyF said:

You also have to wonder what lengths SPFL and member clubs will go to ensure that there are no "stress points" in the ongoing contract.

It would involve too many people to keep outright corruption, match fixing, say, quiet.

I imagine that any manoevres would occur post hoc, once Rangers had secured the title.