Park in court move as row over league backer rages

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has taken court action to place a hold on SFA arbitration of the club’s sponsorship dispute with the SPFL. The Ibrox outfit have refused to carry any branding on their jerseys or advertising boards to promote the league’s £8million deal with online car retailer cinch. Rangers claim the SPFL’s Rule I7 means they are not obliged to do so because of a pre-existing contract with Park’s car dealerships. The SPFL referred the matter to the SFA for arbitration, but Park has succeeded in obtaining an interim interdict, meaning it can only now proceed if his firm are involved. League sources

described the delay as ‘procedural’. In a statement issued last night, Rangers claimed the court hearing was only made necessary by the SPFL’s ‘antagonistic’ approach to the issue. A spokesperson for Park’s of Hamilton said: ‘We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today 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. ‘This is 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 launched a fresh attack on the SPFL hierarchy in the wake of the outcome. ‘Today’s court ruling once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL,’ said a club statement. ‘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 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.’