|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 3 Aug 13:49
There's a story going round that they're potentially pulling out if their sponsorship deal with the SPFL as Rangers are refusing to display their logo as one of their board owns a fairly well known dealership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Tue 3 Aug 14:08
If true which I doubt, it says more about Cinch if one club failure to promote is meaning they want out.
I am sure it works out at just 2/3k per game for having shirt sleeve sponsor on shirt which for the bigger clubs I could see it being an issue with other shirt sponsors who pay far more, however all seems very petty from Rangers on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Tue 3 Aug 14:17
Petty it may be but it all depends on how much loans rangers owe the board member
 East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARSpars
Date: Tue 3 Aug 14:22
Petty as feck from them!!
The league should just say OK then no prize money or tv money to be given to them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: FRED1981
Date: Tue 3 Aug 14:27
Sevco wanting there own way again same with the BBC no interviews stop showing there games and no cinch on the shirts don’t pay them the sponsor money .The usual from this lot so you will do what we want WATP so do it and put up with it.
F muller
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Athletico
Date: Tue 3 Aug 16:18
They never took the same stance when Ladbrokes were announced as the sponsor and they had 32Red as their sponsor.
Another reason to add to the never ending list of reasons to hate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parfect69
Date: Tue 3 Aug 18:06
Tell them to GTF. Surely breaching some sort of rule within the sponsorship deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Tue 3 Aug 18:32
Quote:
dafc, Tue 03 Aug 14:08
If true which I doubt, it says more about Cinch if one club failure to promote is meaning they want out.
I am sure it works out at just 2/3k per game for having shirt sleeve sponsor on shirt which for the bigger clubs I could see it being an issue with other shirt sponsors who pay far more, however all seems very petty from Rangers on this.
I disagree, from a Sponsorship perspective the most appeal is from the Old Firm so if one of them decides to boycott it (which I don’t think is acceptable at all) I can see why Cinch would want out. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if Rangers get away with this, think it would say a lot about Rangers and the SFA, not much more than we already know perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Tue 3 Aug 18:35
Tell them spfl will change it but only other sponsor is the RC church.
East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Tue 3 Aug 19:33
I dislike the OF as much as anyone but if they have had this sponsor for a while it isn't their fault if the league bring in a competitor.
They just need to be big boys and girls about it and strike a compromise.
In british touring cars Kwik Fit became a main sponsor and every car had to carry their logo in the number plate space but one of the teams is sponsored by Halfords so they were allowed to opt out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Tue 3 Aug 19:36
They should be allowed to opt out but they should get a reduced prize as a consequence. Their choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Tue 3 Aug 20:37
Yup reduced prize....zero
East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Tue 3 Aug 21:07
There's no conflict at all here. Rangers, to my knowledge, are not a car dealership.
It's one director seemingly acting like a toddler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Aug 01:12
3 0 award to every opponent where Sevco fail to meet their obligations to the league. Sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Wed 4 Aug 11:37
That's the only way I can see celtic taking 3pts of rangers this season LPF
East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: eastendalloapar
Date: Wed 4 Aug 11:58
Simple answer to the 2012 club, accept Cinch or swap your league place with Brechin.
matt forsyth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Aug 12:06
Quote:
MDCCCLXXXV, Wed 4 Aug 11:37
That's the only way I can see celtic taking 3pts of rangers this season LPF
That's very true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Leamington_sPAR
Date: Wed 4 Aug 20:37
Quote:
DA-go Par Adonis, Tue 03 Aug 21:07
There's no conflict at all here. Rangers, to my knowledge, are not a car dealership.
It's one director seemingly acting like a toddler.
It would appear the SPFL management have f***ed up once again. Scots law prevents the breaching of an existing contract and therefore is in the SPFL rule book. Apparently Rangers had notified Doncaster before they signed the deal. Hmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Wed 4 Aug 23:11
Strikes me as utter nonsense. They won't put the league sponsor's logo on the shirt because one of their directors has a commercial arrangement with the club?
As someone mentioned, this would have seem to be an issue which should have come up before with all the various gambling sites taking to sponsorship.
I get the feeling Douglas Park just doesn't like the way Cinch are shaking up the car market and is launching toys out his travel system. Maybe he's part Maltese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Thu 5 Aug 00:17
"It would appear the SPFL management have f***ed up once again. Scots law prevents the breaching of an existing contract and therefore is in the SPFL rule book. Apparently Rangers had notified Doncaster before they signed the deal. Hmmmm
It`s not really a Scots Law issue, as always it`s to do with the words in the various contract documents and rulebooks. The contract documents are presumably in confidence, but the SPFL rulebook is available online.
As I understand it, Rangers seem to be saying that they (Rangers) have an existing commercial contract with X which they (Rangers) would be in breach of were the cinch logo to be displayed on Rangers shirts and cinch advertising to be displayed at Ibrox, in the manner described in the SPFL/cinch contract.
Rangers are relying on SPFL Rule 17.1, which permits them (Rangers) not to comply with the terms of the SPFL/cinch contract if doing so forces them (Rangers) to breach an existing contract. Rangers say they notified the SPFL of this before the SPFL/cinch contract was signed.
I think the onus is therefore on Rangers to demonstrate, in court if necessary, that they have an existing commercial contract which would be breached by the specific actions the cinch/SPFL contract requires them (Rangers) to perform. I guess the legal argument would be whether those specific actions were defined in or could be properly interpreted as material breaches of the contract between Rangers and X. (The distinction between "material" and "non-material" is important in law.) If so, then Rangers` legal case is probably sound (if morally suspect!)
And if the SPFL is unable to perform its contract with cinch due to Rangers non-fulfilment then it`s probable that the SPFL is in material breach of contract and could face a claim for damages from cinch!
However, if Rangers are unable to prove their case but continue not to fulfil the obligations in the SPFL/cinch contract to the point where cinch terminates the contract on the grounds of non-performance, and the other 41 clubs lose the expected sponsorship money, things could become very interesting ....
There could be scope for a compromise, depending what renedies for a breach are set out in the contract between Rangers and X, and/or whether X would seek damages from Rangers, which they would be entitled to do. The remedy/damages could be recompensed by the SPFL in exchange for Rangers` fulfilling the requirements of the SPFL/cinch contract.
Post Edited (Thu 05 Aug 00:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Thu 5 Aug 00:30
It's also an absolutely pathetic sponsorship deal for football up here. Doncaster has been a blight on Scottish football ever since he was elected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Thu 5 Aug 07:58
Quote:
DA-go Par Adonis, Wed 4 Aug 23:11I get the feeling Douglas Park just doesn't like the way Cinch are shaking up the car market and is launching toys out his travel system.
Strongly suspect you are right DA-Go. Sounds like Rangers will dig their heels in and you couldn't blame Cinch for wanting to reduce their sponsorship fee to offset the reduction in exposure they'll get. And of course all clubs would suffer accordingly as their payments would drop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 5 Aug 09:29
Neil Doncaster`s always the fall guy in these situations but it must be a nightmare negotiating a deal on behalf of the SPFL if you have you take into consideration the commercial deals all the member clubs have in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Thu 5 Aug 10:29
SPFL membership should probably have a clause that effectively means clubs are responsible for ensuring their sponsorship deals don't limit SPFL deals.
ie a club's deal with a sponsor cannot prevent SPFL sponsor on shirt, in ground, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Thu 5 Aug 11:05
Quote:
fcda, Thu 5 Aug 10:29
SPFL membership should probably have a clause that effectively means clubs are responsible for ensuring their sponsorship deals don't limit SPFL deals.
ie a club's deal with a sponsor cannot prevent SPFL sponsor on shirt, in ground, etc.
I agree, but that would require the clubs to change the current SPFL rules - and that is unlikely to happen!
If the SPFL rules were changed as you suggest, it would mean a club's commercial deals could be over-ridden by an SPFL action over which the club has no control, which would reduce the deal's commercial value to the club and the other party to their contract.
At the time Rangers signed their contract with X, presumably it was all compliant with the SPFL sponsorship deal then in existence. Rangers' claim is that the SPFL has moved the goalposts.
Wee eck is correct, though - it's a horrendous task to ensure any SPFL sponsorship deal complies with the contracts put in place by 42 clubs.
_________________
Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club when you shop online with one of 7000 firms: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc
Or donate £5: text "DADSC" to 70970
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 5 Aug 12:28
If Ranger's claim is true though, they apparently did flag it to the SPFL. If they did and there is a genuine exclusivity clause that prevents them from complying with the sponsorship deal then that does fall back on Doncaster (as much as it pains me to side with Rangers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Thu 5 Aug 12:44
Suspect it will turn out to be Rangers who signed an exclusivity deal which they cannot adhere to - due to their membership of the SPFL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Thu 5 Aug 13:21
I don't see how any club can sign exclusivity contacts beyond their own teams sponsorship, especially if they play in sponsored competitions and leagues with other commercial teams
If they've genuinely done that and promised a sponsor they won't have a competitor logo (even if that is from the league /competition they wish to participate in) then more fool them because they've put themselves in that spot
If they don't want to take part due to clash in sponsors then they can relinquish their spot to someone else who hasn't contracted themselves into a corner
Post Edited (Thu 05 Aug 13:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: da_no_1
Date: Thu 5 Aug 14:32
This just smells like Sevco all over. Classless scumbags
"Some days will stay a 1000 years, some pass like the flash of a spark"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: eastendalloapar
Date: Thu 5 Aug 15:25
I remember getting told back in the 80s that Parks ran buses to get Scabs into the mines during the strike. Are the car dealers the same company.
matt forsyth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 5 Aug 16:08
Quote:
eastendalloapar, Thu 5 Aug 15:25
I remember getting told back in the 80s that Parks ran buses to get Scabs into the mines during the strike. Are the car dealers the same company.
Car dealers and buses are part of the same group. Not exactly Arnold Clark level but Parks own a fair few garages over Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: eastendalloapar
Date: Thu 5 Aug 17:47
They have the BMW dealership in Stirling.
matt forsyth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Thu 5 Aug 17:51
Quote:
londonparsfan, Thu 05 Aug 12:28
If Ranger's claim is true though, they apparently did flag it to the SPFL. If they did and there is a genuine exclusivity clause that prevents them from complying with the sponsorship deal then that does fall back on Doncaster (as much as it pains me to side with Rangers).
Of it goes to court, I’d make the Rangers directors give evidence under oath.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Polt
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:16
Doncaster causes more bad publicity and deals for Scottish football than anyone from memory. Still under selling and really needs to GTF bring in someone with business knowledge of growing a brand and promote it effectively. Someone with a backbone to take those two on in Glasgow and look after smaller clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dave67
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:33
Rule 17
It states: “That a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
Let`s try making it till Christmas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:50
You`d think it would standard operating procedure for the SPFL to advise all member clubs in advance of deals under negotiation so that there are no potential conflict of interests.
That seems to be a business practice too far for them in this instance - and the buck has to stop with Doncaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:53
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Thu 5 Aug 17:51
Quote:
londonparsfan, Thu 05 Aug 12:28
If Ranger's claim is true though, they apparently did flag it to the SPFL. If they did and there is a genuine exclusivity clause that prevents them from complying with the sponsorship deal then that does fall back on Doncaster (as much as it pains me to side with Rangers).
Of it goes to court, I’d make the Rangers directors give evidence under oath.
It'll be interesting to see what happens next. IMO they should provide copies of the contract to confirm the deals were in place and they legally can't comply with the SPFL requirements (not they just don't fancy it because one of their directors has competing business) but then I could understand some resistance to do that due to the incestuous way football governing bodies are made up as you'd essentially be proving commercial contracts to your rivals.
Post Edited (Thu 05 Aug 18:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:54
Quote:
Polt, Thu 5 Aug 18:16
Doncaster causes more bad publicity and deals for Scottish football than anyone from memory. Still under selling and really needs to GTF bring in someone with business knowledge of growing a brand and promote it effectively. Someone with a backbone to take those two on in Glasgow and look after smaller clubs.
This lot make Jim Farry look competent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 5 Aug 18:56
Quote:
veteraneastender, Thu 5 Aug 18:50
You`d think it would standard operating procedure for the SPFL to advise all member clubs in advance of deals under negotiation so that there are no potential conflict of interests.
That seems to be a business practice too far for them in this instance - and the buck has to stop with Doncaster.
Apparently they did and Rangers are claiming as soon as they saw the draft they told the SPFL they couldn't comply.
Either Rangers are exaggerating the scope if their contracts or the SPFL are completely incompetent. Both scenarios are entirely plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
