SPFL/cinch and Rangers

[Uilleam 5,948]

May we take it that the SPFL will meet Rangers' reasonable legal fees and expenses, given that it pursued the matter, perhaps vexatiously, or, even, dare I say, maliciously? 

If so, the SPFL has chosen a very expensive way to make a fool of itself. Even if both sides meet their own costs, which I think unlikely, it still looks like a rather wasteful exercise for the league. 

 

In any event, the member clubs will surely question the Board and the hired help over this profligacy.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,345]

12 hours ago, Bill said:

Looks like a determined effort to disguise what is essentially a humiliating climb down by the SPFL. Wonder what they had to offer Cinch to get this outcome?

They did the same with Sky to get them to agree to cut the season short year of COVID. As a result gave them a new 5 year deal at a heavily discounted rate. How these clowns get to run our game I have no idea.

[Uilleam 5,948]

14 hours ago, Bill said:

Looks like a determined effort to disguise what is essentially a humiliating climb down by the SPFL. Wonder what they had to offer Cinch to get this outcome?

Make of this what you will: 

 

"...Doncaster and MacLennan described the revised deal as “extremely good” and “a great outcome” respectively. “Under the terms of the revised cinch contract Rangers are no longer required to participate by providing the sponsorship inventory that they have so far not provided, whilst, crucially, the overall income to Scottish football is expected to remain materially unchanged over the original five-year term of the sponsorship,” Doncaster said in a statement.

“This revised package has now been approved by cinch Premiership clubs. It’s extremely good news that we have been able to work with our partners at cinch to develop an updated sponsorship package which delivers the same level of financial support to Scottish football, whilst providing additional SPFL media assets to cinch to compensate for loss of Rangers related rights.

“It is testament to the strength of our relationship with cinch, and the high value they place on it, that they have agreed to move forward with us on this basis...."

 

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-claim-full-vindication-in-cinch-sponsorship-row-7ck2drpfw)

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Great result but just a pity that we couldn't get a better League sponsor than a tacky online outfit.

What do you mean "we"?

[ian1964 10,724]

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.”

 

 

 

[alexscottislegend 2,328]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

What do you mean "we"?

The league we play in. We may not like it but we are part of it until our Southron cousins invite us to join them.

[ChelseaBoy 2,441]

11 minutes ago, alexscottislegend said:

The league we play in. We may not like it but we are part of it until our Southron cousins invite us to join them.

Why wait for an invite, just apply. 

[ian1964 10,724]

4 minutes ago, ChelseaBoy said:

Why wait for an invite, just apply. 

Pie in the sky! no chance the EPL want Rangers,(or Separate Entity FC), in their league! it would be rejected by the clubs! it will never happen!

[ChelseaBoy 2,441]

5 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

Pie in the sky! no chance the EPL want Rangers,(or Separate Entity FC), in their league! it would be rejected by the clubs! it will never happen!

Well the other lot wouldn't want to play in the English league when they in favour of Independance. Money talks and I can't see why the waters couldn't be tested. 

[CammyF 8,122]

1 hour 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.”

 

 

 

Oooft that's a statement! Can Rangers put a bid in to Parks for the person who wrote that 😉