The SPFL will hold an emergency meeting today, according to a report, over the row surrounding their title sponsorship with cinch after Rangers wrote to the other 41 clubs explaining their stance.
Rangers opted out of carrying any of the new cinch SPFL branding, citing an issue with an existing commercial contract and sparking a war of words between the Gers and the league.
According to the Daily Record, an emergency meeting will be held today as league bosses await evidence from Rangers to back up their claims.
Rangers had written to clubs raising four questions over the deal with the car trader, citing their protections under both SPFL rules and Scots Law.
The Gers’ shirt will again be missing the cinch Premiership branding when they face Dundee United at Tannadice this weekend, with the right sleeve of the players’ jersey left empty.
The SPFL’s deal with cinch was heralded as a record sponsorship agreement across the history of the Scottish league, earning a mere £1.6million per year across the 42 clubs in the league.
Rangers’ letter to clubs in full:
“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.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:
“Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?
“Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?
“Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?
“It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal.
“That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game. Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full-time Commercial Director?”
Receive exclusive football transfer news and updates twice a week to your mailbox
