RANGERS have claimed they informed the SPFL of their stance over an £8million sponsorship deal before it was signed off earlier this year.

The Premiership champions are in a legal dispute with League chiefs after refusing to use the branding of used car sales firm cinch on their shirts or around Ibrox during their fixture with Livingston on Saturday.

Murdoch MacLennan, the SPFL chairman, this week labelled Rangers' actions as 'very disappointing' amid fears that cinch could look to rip up the agreement that provides much-needed financial support to Scottish football.

Rangers insist that rule I7 of the SPFL states that member clubs are ‘not obliged to comply with this rule if to do so would result in that club being in breach of a contractual obligation entered into prior to the commercial contract concerned' and have accused the Hampden board of blowing £500,000 of League funds on agency fees to secure the five-year deal.

Managing Director Stewart Robertson has now written to clubs to outline Rangers' position on the row that has piled the pressure on SPFL chief Neil Doncaster just a week into the new league season.

Robertson was elected onto the League board as one of three Premiership representatives last month and, in his correspondence this week, states: "For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.

"One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.

"When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation. 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.

"However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:

"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?

"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?

"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?

"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 £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?"