Wednesday’s court shock in which the real reason for the cinch and SPFL emerged is still ringing in the ears.
Rangers have ‘denied’ the claims, but they’ve done so via an unidentified statement rather than as a testimony in a court of law, where they have to tell the truth.
To be clear, this is what was said in court:
The document is the original redacted one which explained the terms and details of the ‘negotiations’.
Rangers came back with this:
Right, let’s pick through this.
First off, the redacted document has the truth in it, and there’s clearly very good reasons so much of that document is redacted. Secondly, who exactly spoke to the BBC from our club to give Chris McLaughlin that statement? Where did he get it? Thirdly, pretty sure we can’t make any public statement about an ongoing court case, which either means McLaughlin is lying, been fooled, or someone from the club really SHOULD NOT have said this. Fourthly, as much as we don’t like it, if this claim has been made in court, that Rangers and cinch were in discussions of any level, whether or not they were full on negotiations, it’s clearly true. If it’s not true, that’s a criminal offence by the SPFL in a court of law.
So, having scoured this messy tale, it does seem, on the surface at least, like Rangers had discussions with cinch, the deal didn’t happen for whatever reason, and the club decided they weren’t going to endorse the brand thereafter when it was of no benefit to them.
It also brings, strangely a spot of abstract credence behind the claim the club was stating about cinch’s SPFL endorsement violating existing contracts – Rangers found other commercial opportunities, plenty of them, thanks to the genius of James Bisgrove, and didn’t look back. Was there a violation of existing contractual obligations? Better people in court have answers to that one.
End of the day it’s a mess, and just something we’d rather not see.