Ian Maxwell denies Douglas Park request for SFA investigation into Rangers' sponsorship dispute with SPFL

·3-min read
Rangers chairman Douglas Park claimed victory after the SPFL were forced to renegotiate their sponsorship deal with cinch over objections from Rangers.
Rangers chairman Douglas Park claimed victory after the SPFL were forced to renegotiate their sponsorship deal with cinch over objections from Rangers.

SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell has told Rangers and the SPFL that their dispute has nothing to do with the Scottish game’s governing body, as he denied the request of Ibrox chairman Douglas Park to hold an independent investigation into the dispute involving the Premiership’s main sponsor, cinch.

Park and Rangers claimed victory after the long-running saga finally ended last week with the SPFL renegotiating it’s deal with the firm so that the Ibrox club were not required to display their branding at their stadium or on their jerseys.

A statement from Park’s Motor Group though slammed the SPFL for their handling of the issue, and demanded that the SFA investigate after the reputational damage and financial losses they have incurred throughout the legal process.

Maxwell says though that the SFA will not look to get involved beyond the arbitration process they previously facilitated, and he sees no reason why the SPFL couldn’t set up an independent investigation of their own.

“The arbitration is closed,” Maxwell said. “The SPFL have written to us to say it was their arbitration, they instigated and they have withdrawn their notice. So the arbitration as far as we are concerned is over.

“In a broader sense, none of those disputes can be good for the game. There have been two or three since I have been in the post that we have had to deal with. They cannot be good for the public perception of the game because it is in-fighting and actually you need to get round the table and sort things out.

“The arbitration has been dealt with. In terms of Rangers and the SPFL if they have a misunderstanding or there’s a complication around the rules or there’s a question mark around how they should be interpreting the rules then that’s actually for them to sort out amongst themselves.

“The SPFL can set up their own independent enquiry to go and look at that and make sure everyone understands exactly how the regulations work going forward. I don’t think that’s something for us.

“It is an internal disagreement on the interpretation of their rules – that is how we got to this point. Obviously the arbitration process is now closed down so I think it is one for the SPFL board. There is no reason they can’t set up something to have a look at that.

“If there is a breach of regulations we get involved. We would not get involved in anything outside of that. You would end up getting involved in absolutely everything. There has to be a line somewhere.

“We have a judicial panel process. If there’s something comes to light that we have to look at from that perspective then we do it.

“From an arbitration perspective, the simplest way I can define this is that it is a debate that happens in our house. We just get one party to talk to the other party and they sort it out between themselves.

“We are not actually involved in a meaningful way. It is just we organise a process and make sure things happen the right way and try and find a resolution.”

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting