A bizarre story has appeared in the press claiming Rangers’ dispute with cinch has ‘had opposite the intended effect’ by boosting the brand.

Based on a YouGov survey, it emerged the publicity of this dispute had made consumers more aware of the cinch brand than they would have been without it (as reported by the s*n), but it was the survey site’s claims that this was contrary to Rangers’ intentions which raised the biggest eyebrow.

The reality of this decision, which Ibrox Noise objected to back in the day to much abuse from a section of the support, was that Douglas Park’s business interests didn’t want to advertise a rival brand at Ibrox.

That is what we said at the time, and were castigated for it.

Since then it has of course emerged that this was the truth, but we take issue with YouGov concluding Rangers’ ‘endeavours have failed’.

See, Rangers, or Park, couldn’t care less about cinch’s brand awareness, he just selfishly didn’t want to advertise a rival at Ibrox, being the chairman and owning a car seller himself.

This was a conflict of his interests, and the club disputed it based on technicalities.

What we think of Park’s actions we’ve been clear on, and we ain’t changing our mind on that, but that’s not what this is about.

It’s about a website thinking Rangers or Park cares about cinch’s brand success. Park’s of Hamilton doesn’t advertise much at all, and is a much more modest business – well known, but with a vastly smaller customer base.

It also isn’t online.

So the reason he didn’t want cinch at Ibrox is he didn’t want a rival brand advertised ‘in his house’.

Be like Coke having a massive Pepsi banner at their headquarters.

It had no bearing on what cinch’s market awareness might be.

So, no YouGov, it didn’t backfire, you just missed the point completely.