comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 11 minutes ago
Honestly bizarre that people think the spfl have been anything other than a shambles here.
Regardless of if you think rangers conflict was valid or not the fact rangers raised one and it was ignored is basically just more incompetence from the spfl. I'm sure rangers were probably just looking for some concession to allow parks branding alongside. Instead it's turned into this embarrassment for Doncaster.
Rangers get the money but don't have to display the sponsor. Probably more than they wanted in first place.
Cinch have had much more publicity than they could have imagined.
Only loser is the spfl where they signed a paltry deal and then had to go back to the sponsor with tail between legs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is this parks branding people keep talking about?
Ffs you've got everybody on that Jersey including one that has ceased trading and at least one other thatblijeky will before the season starts. No sign of Park's who recently had their credit rating cut yet again.
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jings...they're a household name are they? Everybody knows about them already?
Hardly likely that it would make any difference to any supposed deal with Parks then.
On website, hoardings at the stadium, many other places. Not aware we have ever had parks on the shirt or planned to. Not even sure why it's relevant?
Rangers were likely only looking for it to be included in the contract that they could continue to do so. Fairly standard practice when there is a conflict. However the spfl ignored it.
Rangers responded, quite rightly by refusing to honour any of the deal, including shirt sponsor and media access.
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
comment by Magnum (Stopping the 2) (U22391)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jings...they're a household name are they? Everybody knows about them already?
Hardly likely that it would make any difference to any supposed deal with Parks then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t see it making much difference to anyone, (I certainly don’t see it as some miracle game changer for Cinch ) but it keeps you lot busy for a wee bit so all good
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well apart from looking incompetent, although that is normal so is suppose you are right no change.
I assume there were legal fee's too.
Rangers could gain though. They get the cinch money but don't have to do anything so could absolutely sell the free advertising space. I'd ask cinch first lol.
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrrhic is just a tad OTT if not complete nonsense. If Rangers had been sued by Cinch and found to be in breach of contract and subsequently owing all and sundry countless millions then perhaps pyrrhic may be appropriate.
Rangers exploited a flaw in the contract, don’t have to use their branding but still get paid so Rangers get… uhm paid for f@ck all.
Let’s just get this oh but this has put Cinch’s brand awareness through the roof bolloqs out the way as well because that’s all it is.
So no Pyrrhic victory, sorry. Doncaster is a tw@t, he ballsed it up and got his bum skelped
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s actually looking a lot worse after this. It’s pretty embarrassing for him and he should really be oot on his erse.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not petty. He did exactly what he thought was right and he proved his point while further exposing Doncaster again for being hopeless.
As for potentially jeopardising a deal for the rest of the clubs
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that's not what happened at all. It also doesn't matter if the conflict was genuine or not regardless of what you think.
What matters is it was raised but ignored.
Those deals you mentioned normally do have conflicts raised. As a result there are usually minor amendments made to the contract to protect existing and future arrangements.
That's exactly what rangers asked for and it was ignored. Your on another planet if you think any other company would then honour such a contract.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
Ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Naw naw naw
That’s not how this works. You should know that by now.
You’re supposed to come back with a devastating retort that keeps the argument going, or it veers off in some way into something weird/disturbing/both. This lasts until the next games.
Or we just resort to throwing insults ya boabysookin überfelcher
FFS, some bhoys don't know defeat when it smacks them in the face
‘Except that's not what happened at all. It also doesn't matter if the conflict was genuine or not regardless of what you think.
What matters is it was raised but ignored.’
Don’t remember anything about rangers wanting amendments, only that robertson sent an email about a conflict.
Anyway-it looks like rangers have finally ‘won’ one of their battles. Well done guys.
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
I don’t recall any Tim suggesting Doncaster was not incompetent but maybe you’ve got something? We know he is. That is a thread in itself. Irrespective, it was nothing more than retaliation for Park getting shown up over his dossier. Hey ho, we can all decide once the full facts are known.
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 34 minutes ago
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the SNP….
comment by I'm not as think as you drunk I am.......... (U2115)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
FFS, some bhoys don't know defeat when it smacks them in the face
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
We’re just laughing at the usual spat between Rangers and well, pretty much anyone on any horizon ending up in the courts yet again.
The SPL are not fit for purpose? Well I never
Oh yeah. And £200k reported legal costs for Rangers. Doncaster still in his job with an improved sponsorship deal for all clubs. Cinch with publicity they could only dream of and Gio continuing to have his after match chat in a cupboard at Fir Park and the like.
Yeah I see that “victory”.
Oh and btw, none of this affects Celtic one little bit.
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 36 minutes ago
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I’m a Conservative voter and no, Doncaster should not be in his job.
Wee daft Celtic with all their Cinch branding up, please Doncaster give us some of the Cinch pennies.
Us, we're no doing it. We're still taking their money.
Sign in if you want to comment
Get it roon ye Doncaster
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
posted on 15/6/22
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
posted on 15/6/22
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 11 minutes ago
Honestly bizarre that people think the spfl have been anything other than a shambles here.
Regardless of if you think rangers conflict was valid or not the fact rangers raised one and it was ignored is basically just more incompetence from the spfl. I'm sure rangers were probably just looking for some concession to allow parks branding alongside. Instead it's turned into this embarrassment for Doncaster.
Rangers get the money but don't have to display the sponsor. Probably more than they wanted in first place.
Cinch have had much more publicity than they could have imagined.
Only loser is the spfl where they signed a paltry deal and then had to go back to the sponsor with tail between legs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is this parks branding people keep talking about?
Ffs you've got everybody on that Jersey including one that has ceased trading and at least one other thatblijeky will before the season starts. No sign of Park's who recently had their credit rating cut yet again.
posted on 15/6/22
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jings...they're a household name are they? Everybody knows about them already?
Hardly likely that it would make any difference to any supposed deal with Parks then.
posted on 15/6/22
On website, hoardings at the stadium, many other places. Not aware we have ever had parks on the shirt or planned to. Not even sure why it's relevant?
Rangers were likely only looking for it to be included in the contract that they could continue to do so. Fairly standard practice when there is a conflict. However the spfl ignored it.
Rangers responded, quite rightly by refusing to honour any of the deal, including shirt sponsor and media access.
posted on 15/6/22
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
posted on 15/6/22
comment by Magnum (Stopping the 2) (U22391)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tims seem to be making it out that poor wee Cinch weren’t actually going anywhere with their Max Headroom meets Freddie Mercury advertising campaign that’s on all day every day and that this wee dispute has suddenly made them a household name.
Dearie me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jings...they're a household name are they? Everybody knows about them already?
Hardly likely that it would make any difference to any supposed deal with Parks then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t see it making much difference to anyone, (I certainly don’t see it as some miracle game changer for Cinch ) but it keeps you lot busy for a wee bit so all good
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well apart from looking incompetent, although that is normal so is suppose you are right no change.
I assume there were legal fee's too.
Rangers could gain though. They get the cinch money but don't have to do anything so could absolutely sell the free advertising space. I'd ask cinch first lol.
posted on 16/6/22
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by rats juice wun uz ra leeg...so it huz (U6393)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
‘Either way....SPFL have capitulated’
Fvcking hell. Don’t go overboard or anything.
Rangers ban Cinch because of an alleged conflict of interest and don’t want to advertise their brand.
Cinch brand awareness goes through the roof. No one mentions Parks of Hamilton, and the SPFL retain the sponsorship deal. That’s probably the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is.
The SPFL have lost nothing. Cinch have gained brand awareness beyond anything that their original sponsorship deal could have gained. Rangers have gained… uhm, nothing.
Doncaster is still employed. All the clubs are still getting paid.
I can see where Doncaster can get it right roon him…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrrhic is just a tad OTT if not complete nonsense. If Rangers had been sued by Cinch and found to be in breach of contract and subsequently owing all and sundry countless millions then perhaps pyrrhic may be appropriate.
Rangers exploited a flaw in the contract, don’t have to use their branding but still get paid so Rangers get… uhm paid for f@ck all.
Let’s just get this oh but this has put Cinch’s brand awareness through the roof bolloqs out the way as well because that’s all it is.
So no Pyrrhic victory, sorry. Doncaster is a tw@t, he ballsed it up and got his bum skelped
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s actually looking a lot worse after this. It’s pretty embarrassing for him and he should really be oot on his erse.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not petty. He did exactly what he thought was right and he proved his point while further exposing Doncaster again for being hopeless.
As for potentially jeopardising a deal for the rest of the clubs
posted on 16/6/22
Ok.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
Doncaster has never looked anything other than incompetent though!
Like I said, not much has changed. SPFL don’t look any worse than they normally do, rangers still look petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think rangers should have accepted the conflict they raised being ignored? I don't think any company would do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don’t believe it really was a genuine conflict. There’s been plenty of other similar situations that didn’t cause any concern-sponsored by a betting company, league sponsored by a betting company-so there’s a distinct feel of a manufactured argument.
Park - if it’s all true about his legal agreements - could have easily came to a deal. But, decided no, he and rangers were going to potentially jeopardise a deal for the rest of the clubs.
I doubt either the SPFL or rangers are particularly happy about the outcome. The SPFL have had to come to a compromise with the sponsors, but Doncaster remains in his job.
Petty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that's not what happened at all. It also doesn't matter if the conflict was genuine or not regardless of what you think.
What matters is it was raised but ignored.
Those deals you mentioned normally do have conflicts raised. As a result there are usually minor amendments made to the contract to protect existing and future arrangements.
That's exactly what rangers asked for and it was ignored. Your on another planet if you think any other company would then honour such a contract.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
Ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Naw naw naw
That’s not how this works. You should know that by now.
You’re supposed to come back with a devastating retort that keeps the argument going, or it veers off in some way into something weird/disturbing/both. This lasts until the next games.
Or we just resort to throwing insults ya boabysookin überfelcher
posted on 16/6/22
FFS, some bhoys don't know defeat when it smacks them in the face
posted on 16/6/22
‘Except that's not what happened at all. It also doesn't matter if the conflict was genuine or not regardless of what you think.
What matters is it was raised but ignored.’
Don’t remember anything about rangers wanting amendments, only that robertson sent an email about a conflict.
Anyway-it looks like rangers have finally ‘won’ one of their battles. Well done guys.
posted on 16/6/22
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
posted on 16/6/22
I don’t recall any Tim suggesting Doncaster was not incompetent but maybe you’ve got something? We know he is. That is a thread in itself. Irrespective, it was nothing more than retaliation for Park getting shown up over his dossier. Hey ho, we can all decide once the full facts are known.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 34 minutes ago
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the SNP….
posted on 16/6/22
comment by I'm not as think as you drunk I am.......... (U2115)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
FFS, some bhoys don't know defeat when it smacks them in the face
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
We’re just laughing at the usual spat between Rangers and well, pretty much anyone on any horizon ending up in the courts yet again.
The SPL are not fit for purpose? Well I never
Oh yeah. And £200k reported legal costs for Rangers. Doncaster still in his job with an improved sponsorship deal for all clubs. Cinch with publicity they could only dream of and Gio continuing to have his after match chat in a cupboard at Fir Park and the like.
Yeah I see that “victory”.
Oh and btw, none of this affects Celtic one little bit.
posted on 16/6/22
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 36 minutes ago
Seems to be a general consensus that Doncaster is incompetent...and we've got people saying that this whole argument has changed nothing, it's only given Cinch more exposure, kept an incompetent man in a job, and have Rangers a wee win
Here my question
Why are you all happy to keep this incompetent man in his job?
If he's useless, get him to fck
Who are you?...Tories??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I’m a Conservative voter and no, Doncaster should not be in his job.
posted on 16/6/22
Wee daft Celtic with all their Cinch branding up, please Doncaster give us some of the Cinch pennies.
Us, we're no doing it. We're still taking their money.
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10