We read with interest Rangers’ response to the SPFL row over Cinch, and we must admit the commentary we got on our original article was lively and colourful to say the least.
90% of the responses to the initial offering were negative, and understandably defended the club in face of SPFL criticism. We had of course been quite blunt, suggesting a conflict of interest between chairman Douglas Park’s business dealings and the SPFL’s chosen sponsor, themselves a car dealer.
Rangers’ defence was intriguing, from managing director Stewart Robertson:
“We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved. For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL. One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7. When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation. We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules. Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.”
Now, the bit we find the most interesting here is that this Rule 17 clause has only been invoked this season (for the first time in history) and there are two outcomes we can deduce from that:
1: James Bisgrove’s brilliant work with gaining a tonne of contracts and sponsors this calendar year has led to unprecedented conflicts with external sponsors outside of Rangers, and it’s caused a legal wrangle. One, which Rangers have the upper hand on.
2: It’s an excuse, a vague piece of rhetoric to justify the refusal to plug a rival car dealership at Ibrox when our chairman owns his own.
There’s no denying there’s conflict of interest, but our club HAS done things right the past few years, in a way it struggled to previously.
As a result we are happy to retract the earlier notion that anything untoward was happening here, and there’s no denying we’ve rarely had more respect for the chairman of our club than we do towards Douglas Park.
It just did seem more than a bit odd that the first time we invoke Rule 17 just happens to be when the SPFL’s new sponsorship clashes with the business interests of someone on our board.
And we’re not shy in saying that.
At Ibrox Noise we have never wimped out of holding our club to task, including the board and manager, when we feel it’s right to do so.
If we get something wrong, we’re happy to retract, as we did some months ago when our sources told us Ianis Hagi and his father were working their ticket out of Rangers. This was corrected by the Hagis directly and we didn’t have any qualms admitting a mistake.
If the same is applicable here, and we hope it is, we’re delighted our club is once again putting its finger justifiably up at the SPFL.