A) the bad smell of clubs going bust puts companies off
B) the stereotype of RL only being watched by unemployed miners is alive and well
C)SL is not covered on free to air tv limiting its exposure to a larger audience
D) The RFL have no clue about how to sell the strengths of the game
E) All of the above

D.

D.

I'd say the RFL failing to show or convey it's a worthwhile investment must be key. The decision will only be made on a financial standpoint in reality.

D.

Nathan Clarke: RFL Social Media & PR:

"SL,like I said, does have sponsors just no title one. Does it need one? 1 sponsor pay £10 or 10 pay £1 -what's diff? "

A which is leading to D

Massive difference...and if you can't see it Mr Clarke then a career elsewhere beckons



EDIT: In fact......the comment "Does it need one"? is enough to have your employment terminated on the spot Mr Clarke.
Of course it bloody needs a naming/main rights sponsor.........the 1.7 million a year paid by Engage was between 10% and 7% of the RFL's friggin turn over at the time. How can an employee of the RFL state publicly that he questions the need for a naming sponsor???

If his attitude is a pointer to that of the rest ofthe staff at the RFL then the game is ed!

E.

All of em !!

That's pretty damn stupid!

A big [size=150D[/size from me.

What is the massive difference then? Just on his point, you say the RFL brought in £1.7m a year from engage, if they are bringing in £1.7m from other sources what is the massive difference?

Because if we had both then total sponsorship would be in excess of £3.5m.
Why just settle for the £1.7m?

Why am I not surprised you jump to the defense of the indefensible



Perception.....a major sponsor will attract futher major companies...Foxy Bingo, Heinz Big soup and Brut are not even contributing 20% of the 1.7 million that Engage did....if Tetley's was worth decent wedge then the figure would have been announced when they signed up for the CC.

Hard to prove now, but when the accounts for 2012 and 2013 become available, then you'll see exactly how little the RFL generates in direct sponsorship deals....

The Foxy Bingo deal is a "hybrid" agreement.....A small retainer payment and then commission paid on every new account signed up. The Heinz and Brut deals are product placement arrangements with more money paid down than Foxy but still a mimimum payment with "cross promotional" activities (data swaps etc) therefter.

The difference is perception....if I am company A looking to launch a new product or get into sports sponsorship, I am not going to pay anything for access to the RL audience that was free in 2012 and is generating 80% less revenue than 2011 in 2013.

Hertz and Marriot are the 2 partners announced by RLWC 2013 so far.....do you think they've baid the 1,000,000 that RLWC 2000 generated in sponsorship? If you do, you need to get a check up.....

If facts are your thing it's worth noting that the £1.7m (it wasn't £1.7m) was precisely 0% of the RFL's turnover as the RFL does not receive the SL naming rights monies.

D (for a long long time) which has led to A and furthering the increase of such happening further down the line, it has also not receded nor changed the perception of the nation of B.
C isn't too far down the list but worst of all E..giving away the lead sponsorship for basically zero and even if there was any gain from it it is almost immeasurable so again basically zero..
The damage to the game with successive s in charge goes back 20 odd years, it won't ever ever recover unless some miracle happens...

Really?
I was under the impression that the RFL's turn over includes all the SL monies such as sponsorship.

If I am wrong, then I'd be keen to see where the £1.85 million came from in the report below......
[urlhttp://rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/RFL2011Report.pdf[/url

......£1.85 million in 2011 sponsorship from Coop and Gillette??????..I think not.....

Wouldn't that include the Challenge Cup & 4 Nations sponsorship as well though? Which would sound about right for the £1.85m figure without the Engage sponsorship.

If the RFL don't receive the monies, who does?

Seems odd that the RFL would be trying to negotiate deals for which they will receive no revenue? Or that whoever does receive the £ would allow the RFL to do the negotiation on their behalf!!

Does Super League (Europe) Ltd still operate?

Well yes, but that isnt the question i asked is it.

I havent defended anything. i just asked you to explain your statement.
The CC was always different. But you seem to be changing tack. Of course numerous sponsors bringing in 20% would be worse. But why would it be worse if it brought in the same?

Maybe so, maybe not. Either way it doesnt address the question i asked or support the statement you made.

Again, whether true or not, this is irrelevant.

What additional sponsors did Engage bring us? How many other sponsors did we have when Engage was our title sponsor.

We can only ask again, why getting £1.7m from 1 sponsor is better than £1.7m from 10 sponsors. That is the principle of the statement you argued against.

Do i think two sponsors of the 2013 WC have paid the same amount as all the sponsors of 2000 WC? No. Though Im not sure why anyone would.

The massive difference that you want me to spell out for you is that the 3 minor sponsors announced to date this year are not worth the same as the last paying sponsor.....not by any stretch of even your often warped imagination!

The statement by the Comms guy was regarding his opinion that SL wasn't any better or worse off with a naming sponsor than say 10 minor sponsors.....and you feel the need to labour the point that he may be right.

Is he !

I don't think Smokey actually was saying that

He was asking why you think it's worse IF the total amount of sponsorship income is the same.

And again I will answer PERCEPTION!

Let's say COMPANY A want to launch a new service that covers the UK and have decided to sponsor a comp that gives them exposure around the country. The look at the current marketplace and see Union has a naming rights sponsor that gets mentioned on TV, in the papers, on the radio and on-line as the AVIVA premiership.

Then they Look at Superleague, which hasn't had a paying naming rights sponsor for 2 years now, but will offer the same coverage as the AVIVA premiership on-line,in the papers, radio and on TV. The see that the last paying sponsor paid about 1/3 of the amount Aviva do, and will probably offer half the previous amount from 2 years ago. The RFL will decline the offer, holding out for more cash.......which when it doesn't come results in another year with no naming sponsor further devaluing the comp and making it harder to replace the money lost since Engage left.....

Instead, COMPANY A will pay 10% of the Engage figure and become the "official" mobile phone partner of the comp and like the Big Soup, Brut and Foxy Bingo deals before them, contribute to the image of the sport, in the eyes of major sponsors, that we are a tin pot organisation that can't nail down a MAJOR deal.

PERCEPTION.

Come back to me when SL announce that they have 10 little deals to replace the Engage money......until then, stop defending the indefensible!