Rangers vs SPFL: Cinch dispute detailed timeline explanation

The row began when SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster signed a deal with the online car dealership in 2021. 

Rangers argued their existing contract with Park Motor Group prohibited them from advertising cinch and their stance was ratified in mediation last April. 

In July, the court of session awarded an interlocuter in Park’s favour and the SPFL sponsorship package was adjusted to preclude Rangers from advertising cinch. 

The Rangers Review understands the SPFL handed assurances to the club in relation to an apology and legal costs but they’ve not materialised and now the Scottish FA have granted unprecedented permission for Rangers to take the SPFL to court. 

It’s a complicated subject that’s been ongoing for over two years.

Here, we’ve provided a detailed explainer that gives a blow by blow account of the timeline.

Who are cinch? 

A used car sales company that claims to be the “fastest growing online used car marketplace”. They say their website will “make it easy for you to find, buy and own your perfect car by removing the faff.” 

Accounts for the year ending 3rd of April 2022 reported a loss turned in pre tax losses of £149.1m on turnover of £815.7m in the year to 3 April 2022. Cinch claimed the losses were  ‘consistent with the stage of development of the business” as they focused on scaling up the business.

READ MORE: Sam Lammers: Inside Rangers' new attacker's PSV rise

Their owners, Constellation Automotive Group, the company behind WeBuyAnyCar and BCA, raised over £1bn from investors like the Abu Dhabi and Singapore sovereign wealth funds as they look to “turbocharge” the company's growth by spending big on advertising. It appears some serious money thinks cinch is a company going places.

What’s the deal? 

Announced on June 10th 2021, cinch became the title sponsor of the SPFL and signed a five-year deal that will run until the 2025/26 season. 

Scotland’s professional football leagues became known as the cinch Premiership, cinch Championship, cinch League 1 and cinch League 2.  

They also became the Official Car Partner while the cinch logo appears on every player’s sleeve. Each game was also to feature a ‘cinch man of the match’.  

How much was it worth? 

Trumpeted as “the largest title sponsorship deal in the SPFL’s history”, the deal is understood to be worth £8m over the half-decade. 

While impressive as a stand-alone figure, the devil is in the detail.

The £1.6m a year is split between all 42 clubs.  

The statement that it’s the largest ever deal also has to be taken with a pinch of salt given previous sponsors Ladbrokes stumped up £5m over two years with their final contract. 

Now £8m is, of course, more than £5m but over the term of the contract the betting company were stumping up £2.5m a year compared to the £1.6m being pumped into the game by cinch.  

What was said at the time? 

SPFL chief executive, Neil Doncaster: “This is an enormously significant partnership for our member clubs, and for Scottish football as a whole. Our discussions with cinch have been extremely positive and the duration of the sponsorship agreement demonstrates their long-term commitment to Scottish football.” 

Robert Bridge, cinch Chief Customer Officer: “We are delighted to support the SPFL and welcome them to our high-profile family of sports sponsorships. It’s another great win for cinch that will play such an important role in putting us and our customers at the centre of some fantastic sporting moments.” 

Okay, so where’s the beef? 

It quickly emerged Rangers were not using cinch advertising during their opening game of the season against Livingston. 

Rangers continued to avoid advertising the brand and that included a custom-made league title flag. Former boss Giovanni van Bronckhorst even appeared in front of a sponsor board where the company’s branding was taped over.

What was the SPFL response? 

Chairman Murdoch MacLennan wrote to the clubs to stress his disappointment. 

He stated: "Dear all. You will all be aware that earlier this summer, the SPFL signed a title sponsorship contract with cinch. This contract is, by value, the biggest single sponsorship deal in the 131-year history of the league. In the context of what is, by any measure, a challenging economic environment, our Chief Executive and his commercial team deserve huge credit for delivering this deal. 

“It is therefore very disappointing that one of our clubs has not felt able to deliver inventory to cinch. Your board will be discussing this situation later this week. I will of course be in touch thereafter to give you a further update.” 

How did Rangers respond to this letter? 

Furious that the SPFL had moved to make the dispute public, managing director Stewart Robertson outlined the legal principle which stopped Rangers from being able to take part in the collective deal.  

It turns out chairman Douglas Park owns Park’s Motor Group, a rival business the club already have a contract with. 

Robertson added further intrigue when he suggested that the club made the SPFL aware of the situation before the deal with cinch was signed. 

He wrote: “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. 

“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.” 

What’s rule I7? 

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 approved to be entered into by the Company the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.” 

Anything else? 

Robertson also asked four questions of the SPFL board (which he also sits on). 

"1. 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? 

"2. 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? 

"3. 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? 

"4. 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?"

What did the SPFL do next? 

The next move came on August 9th with a letter from McLennan to the clubs informing them the issue was proceeding to arbitration under the jurisdiction of the SFA. 

He stated: "Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse. 

"However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch. 

"The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL's fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs. 

"This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract. 

"Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance. 

"However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs." 

So what happened with that? 

Rangers moved to bring a halt to proceedings as Douglas Parks’ company was not included in the process despite being an ‘interested party’.  

This was ruled to be in breach of SFA rules and the arbitration was halted.

Parks was even awarded all costs in what will have been an expensive judgement for the SFA. 

A Park’s spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL. 

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.  

“This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved. 

“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties. 

“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action. 

“It was a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.” 

Rangers moved to highlight their concerns about mismanagement at the SPFL once again. 

A statement read: "Today's court ruling once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL. 

"These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. 

"We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. 

"The executive of the SPFL is required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. 

"Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs." 

The SPFL were referred to the SFA Compliance Officer over claims the league breached the SFA’s articles of association by attempting to block Parks' participation in arbitration but no further action was taken by the governing body following an investigation. 

How did the SPFL react? 

There was a drip feed of stories suggesting that cinch may pull out of the deal due to Rangers’ lack of involvement in promoting their brand, despite all evidence suggesting that the legal situation has given the company a bigger media footprint than they could have ever dreamed of. 

This was backed up by a YouGov poll which reported that cinch, boosted by significant digital and print column inches, saw a greater increase in their brand awareness metric "than any other automotive brand in our database”. 

Regardless of the tangible impact for cinch, it was suggested by a "Hampden source" in an article published in The Times on May 21st that a Rangers title win would have been a “stress point”. 

It said: “I know there had been growing dissatisfaction from cinch about Rangers’ lack of co-operation. Had they become champions again and continued to ignore the sponsors then that could have become a stress point.” 

A second source in the same piece, described as a “Premiership director”, stated the potential for a class-action lawsuit was discussed amongst clubs should cinch pull out of the deal. 

Did the two parties get together to resolve this?

Yes, through a private mediation process - and while the SPFL caved in, the issues were only solved to an extent.

In June 2022, the SPFL announced a revised deal with cinch that allows Rangers to continue not to advertise the brand. There is no effect on the quantum of the agreement and it’s understood Rangers will still continue to benefit from the deal. 

Neil Doncaster said: “Under the terms of the revised cinch contract, Rangers are no longer required to participate by providing the sponsorship inventory that they have so far not provided, whilst, crucially, the overall income to Scottish football is expected to remain materially unchanged over the original five-year term of the sponsorship. This revised package has now been approved by cinch Premiership Clubs. 

“It’s extremely good news that we have been able to work with our partners at cinch to develop an updated sponsorship package which delivers the same level of financial support to Scottish football, whilst providing additional SPFL media assets to cinch to compensate for loss of Rangers related rights. It is testament to the strength of our relationship with cinch, and the high value they place on it, that they have agreed to move forward with us on this basis. 

“This deal gives us further confidence that we will exceed our budget and deliver fees to Clubs of more than £27.5 million for Season 2021/22.” 

The Rangers Review understands that at the end of the legal mediation process, the SPFL indicated they would provide both an apology to Rangers and Park’s Motor Group, whilst also considering covering the legal costs of the club.

What did Rangers say? 

The club felt this development is a total exoneration of their position since the very start of this issue. They have always maintained they are merely following the rules set out by the SPFL. A statement read: “This is a full vindication of our stance throughout the past season and further highlights wide-ranging concerns regarding the corporate governance of the SPFL.”

Is this now finished?

No, it seems this dispute continues to rumble on. Rangers still await an apology and an offer of compensation. If those conditions are met, they are understood to be happy to draw a line under the saga and move on. However, the SPFL have failed to fulfil their pledge and now the SFA have given the go-ahead for Rangers to pursue costs and damages in court - a situation that could yet see the Govan club win significant recompense.