Rangers chief Park in second legal win over cinch row

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch. The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, had already obtained an interim interdict compelling the SFA to allow them to participate in an arbitration process involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch. And yesterday, he saw off an appeal by Hampden chiefs to overturn that decision. Park believes the deal struck by the league breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm and the Ibrox club.

Rangers are refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or on advertising boards and the SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA. SFA lawyers yesterday argued at the Inner House of the Court of Session — Scotland’s highest civil appeal court — that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect. They believed Park’s of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because they are not a member of the SPFL. But Park’s of Hamilton’s lawyers told the court the decision was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s branding. They also argued that Park’s of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process. After hearing the submissions, Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman refused to overturn the lower court’s decision. Lord Carloway ordered the SFA to pay Park’s of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing. Advocate Garry Borland QC, acting for the SFA, said: ‘Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA. ‘Park’s of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Park’s of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.’ But Gavin MacColl QC, for Park’s, said the commercial issues meant it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process. He said: ‘An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations.’