Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut but the wakey owner just said its not £750k a yr

So you'd expect the RWC in a country of 4.2 million to average the same as a RWC in a country of 60 million would you

I don't see how pointing out the different in size of potential audience is making an excuse or shifting goalposts.....but I do see you decrying the comparison between the 2 codes before trying to score points against the slower but infinitely bigger and more popular code



Back on thread.

As the Wakefield owner has just apparently announced, the new sponsorship deal is not 750k a year.

Given Bradford get 300k a year for their shirts and naming rights to the Iconic Odsal, this deal with FU is looking anything but super. Get ready for emails from your clubs and adverts on club pages offering FU energy services.......kid of like the foxy bingo game changing deal from 2013.

||||||||||||||||||||||| >> Carp carp carp carp

You can call it what you want, but don't be under the illusion it's good deal. At £250k a year it's £343 a week per club better than the Stobart deal but £1,300 a week less per club than Engage.........The RFL press department will have been fielding calls all week from Journalists enquiring as to the details of the deal. If they were good, then we'd have read about them by now...they aren't!

Two organisations not disclosing the financial details of a deal is hardly a shock.

I do wonder what people expect at times, Keith Chegwin knocking at the door of Red Hall with a massive cheque signed to the RFL perhaps.

When the news is good, the RFL roll out the full press machine. When the news is not so good, the RFL hide behind the door and hope it'll go away....and when it doesn't, we get press releases like last years declaration that lots of small deals are better than one big one.

The Irony of some RL clubs wanting more control over the commercials is delicious.....especially if the "cost per connection" part of this deal is linked directly to individual clubs as opposed to the collective

Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I'm still to see any figure quoted other than £750k per year.
I also don't remember other sponsorship amounts being directly disclosed.

Why do some people on here get so bothered by this?

A company/business/organisation/sports club has good news, so it makes a noise about it......what do you expect? It has bad/disappointing news and people can't understand why they don't shout it from the rooftops, really?

People go on about what the RFL actually does to attract new people/sponsors etc. to the game because they "want the sport to grow" but they then want them to come out and reveal all the bad points in public.....Why? It makes no sense, it clearly wouldn't help the sport, seems the only reason why is so some can point at it and say "oh look how s**t, I was right all along."

In a normal 9 to 5 business, if the owner or manager you worked for had potential clients/customers visiting. You would expect/want them to promote the company well and talk it up and highlight the positives, not tell them all the horrors. If you were buying a house or a used car you would expect the salesperson to tell you how good it all is, not point out all the bad points.

The problem is that the RFL (and SL chairmen) painted themselves into a very public corner with the Stobart deal. They (the RFL) went to great lengths to justify the wagon deal as having a value of 2 million a year in exposure, when in reality, SKY Sports got a load of free adverts. Last year they didn't managed to monatise the naming rights at all and instead told us that Foxy Bingo and Heinz Big Soups were better than a big naming rights sponsor.......this year, they have managed to secure a naming rights sponsor, who operates in a massive CPA/Associate market place and in an industry that rarely spends any "up front" cash on marketing strategies. As such, they have remained tight lipped regarding the actual mechanics of this, but the Wakefield boss has gone on record (apparently) as saying it is not 750k a year.

I believe it is an associate/CPA deal with the first payment of 250k for each year assured against the first 5,000 RL utility swappers with the rest paid out at somewhere between 55 and 75 a pop thereafter.

I am happy that the RFL have managed to sell something that they previously gave away, but I am not happy as a supporter of the game and as someone who wants it to prosper, at the very likely structure of this deal.....it essentially gives the Utility supplier access to 60k fans in attendance each week and 300k viewers on SKY TV for very little assured revenue!

Quote ="gutterfax"You don't care...but If you think the drop in attendances was bad for RWC 2011, look away when it comes to the increase in 2015 you really are an idiot aren't you? New Zealand, population 4 million and change....RLWC 2013 host nations 100,000,000+.........which comp has a million more spectators and not a double header in sight? The combined attendances from the 13 RLWC's 1954-2008 was less than the 2007 RWC managed on its own......do you want to compare the World Cups some more? As for the Sponsorship deal......if it were all cash, the RFL would have said it was. It is a contra deal with a % of the money dependant on how many fans sign up to this company for gas and power. If you think otherwise, then fine, but it would show exactly how naïve and in denial you really are '" Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.

Quote ="gutterfax"You don't care...but If you think the drop in attendances was bad for RWC 2011, look away when it comes to the increase in 2015 you really are an idiot aren't you? New Zealand, population 4 million and change....RLWC 2013 host nations 100,000,000+.........which comp has a million more spectators and not a double header in sight? The combined attendances from the 13 RLWC's 1954-2008 was less than the 2007 RWC managed on its own......do you want to compare the World Cups some more? As for the Sponsorship deal......if it were all cash, the RFL would have said it was. It is a contra deal with a % of the money dependant on how many fans sign up to this company for gas and power. If you think otherwise, then fine, but it would show exactly how naïve and in denial you really are '" Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.

Gutters can you give me a link to ANY announcement of direct value of a sponsorship by the code, club or sponsor? Not journo speculation but an official confirmation of amount. In my memory I can't think of one.

You are merely negatively speculating, which we all know you are wanton to do, hopefully you are as correct as your RLWC predictions!

What were these "great lengths" they went to exactly? So they bigged up the deals they made, again what do you expect?

What would be achieved if they made a lot of noise about how bad or wrong previous deals were? Especially at a time when new main sponsors are needed.

In the infamous attendance thread one of the reasons for its creation was apparently because Nigel Wood highlighted raises in attendance in 2012 but didn't gather the press around to tell them about drops in 2013.

It's funny that the same posters who want the RFL to highlight negative points in the game to the media are the same ones you'll find criticising this deal for the next few years. If you think this new sponsor & deal are bad then what do you think we'd have gotten if the RFL had gone looking for sponsors on the back of quotes from Wood highlighting drops in attendance and previous poor choice of sponsor with no money involved?

Their's accountability, then their's stupidity. Some peoples version of the former is more actually the latter.

you're assuming that this "deal" runs its course.....the thing with these sorts of deals is that if the conversion rate doesn't suit the "sponsor" they are more than likely to walk away from it and go to another aggregate site.
As for wanting the RFL to highlight negatives? don't talk daft. Nobody expects them to report negatives, but what we should be able to expect as fans of the game is a governing body that can deliver paying sponsors, not companies that want access to their audience with a promise of funds IF that audience buys.....and that is what this deal is. It will come out in the wash eventually....and the usual apologists will line up to whine about the recession and how hard times are.....

Quote ="JB Down Under"Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.'" What prediction? NZRU together with the NZ Government paid top dollar ($85,000,000) to host the RWC and made a paper loss as was expected. I didn't predict or claim otherwise.....I simply said that more people attended RWC 2007 than had attended 13 RLWC events 1954-2008 and that RWC 2011 attracted a million more paying spectators than RLWC 2013. Given the ticket sales of RWC 2011 were about $250,000,000 and the turn over of RLWC 2013 was about 10% of that, the comparisons are pretty pointless really...as the IRB made a profit of $85,000,000 from hosting rights alone. I suspect RWC 2015 will be a loss make as well for the RFU and English government.....as will the 2019 RWC for Japans Union and government, but either way, the IRB will make $200,000,000 in hosting rights alone.....no doubt south Africa will bid again after that and the sick puppy that is the ARU and the IRB will continue to clip the ticket at the expense of governments around the world.....let's compare the comps some more shall we? I have to love the attempts to belittle the slower but bigger game by the insecurity brigade on here....Aviva pay 4 million quid a year in cold hard cash for their naming rights of the Union domestic comp.....Saracens get twice the supposed 750k that SL is getting yet you'll get apologists left right and centre saying it's a good deal for the RFL........

Quote ="JB Down Under"Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.'" What prediction? NZRU together with the NZ Government paid top dollar ($85,000,000) to host the RWC and made a paper loss as was expected. I didn't predict or claim otherwise.....I simply said that more people attended RWC 2007 than had attended 13 RLWC events 1954-2008 and that RWC 2011 attracted a million more paying spectators than RLWC 2013. Given the ticket sales of RWC 2011 were about $250,000,000 and the turn over of RLWC 2013 was about 10% of that, the comparisons are pretty pointless really...as the IRB made a profit of $85,000,000 from hosting rights alone. I suspect RWC 2015 will be a loss make as well for the RFU and English government.....as will the 2019 RWC for Japans Union and government, but either way, the IRB will make $200,000,000 in hosting rights alone.....no doubt south Africa will bid again after that and the sick puppy that is the ARU and the IRB will continue to clip the ticket at the expense of governments around the world.....let's compare the comps some more shall we? I have to love the attempts to belittle the slower but bigger game by the insecurity brigade on here....Aviva pay 4 million quid a year in cold hard cash for their naming rights of the Union domestic comp.....Saracens get twice the supposed 750k that SL is getting yet you'll get apologists left right and centre saying it's a good deal for the RFL........

Fake PR? I'm going to assume you're just being sarcastic, there.

I tell you, Rugby League fans should, in the main, be banned from the internet.

I think he means a bull popper calling bull poop



Read on the Wakefield board a post by daddy cool (who is at least supposedly their chairman) who said the deal was significantly higher than koukash had posted, and had a cash part and a sign up part (he also took a little swipe at the good dr too)

No, it's "only" 27%

I used to enjoy this forum before you came to prominence. It's not that your views differ, that's what this is all about. It's the same old facts and comparisons that bore me to death and dread the sight of your posts in a thread.

I don't care what the Aviva Premiership deal's worth. It's a more marketable competition with a national spread of clubs with a higher class of supporter. Why are you belittling the First Utilities deal in comparison to this? And don't say others bring it up, you can't wait to get your facts and figures out at every bloody opportunity. Find an interest that you can be positive about!

As I say, i'm all for differing opinions on OUR game but your incessant drivel is just annoying.

unfortunately adding him to the foes list doesn't help either because the thread is completely derailed and people just end up quoting him anyway. Sure in AUP it says no deliberate derailing of threads, what else can this be?

I realize proportionate is the new buzzword courtesy of the Human Rights stuff,but perspective is what I would use here.
We will never be given the true amount but it does seem the Engage Mutual sponsorship,ver many years,was better.
As was the deal,which ended prematurely,with Stobart,and despite the hype the other 'hoped for' commercial partners did not leap on board.
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/16729988Remind Yourself Of The Sum Quoted And The Additional Spin[/url

As the RFL seem to delay announcements/split them up, maybe a fuller picture will emerge in time.

The stobart deal was better?? Really?

I definitely believe the engage deal was better, but in the relative position the sport was in, I still think the deal ranges in the "okay to good" section - better than the disastrous section stobart was in. Ultimately getting people to pay for something you gave away for free previously is very difficult - just ask the clubs that have done cheap season tickets and are now trying to charge full price

No I'm not, people still talk about the Engage and Stobart deals even though they've finished, so "people will criticise this deal for years" is a fair assumption regardless of whether it runs its full course.



Not saying that is wrong, and I've not said this a fantastic deal. I was questioning why you and others get peeved about the RFL in terms of their media responses, you did write.....

"when the news is good, the RFL roll out the full press machine. When the news is not so good, the RFL hide behind the door and hope it'll go away."

What part of this bugs you? That they report good news? That they don't highlight the bad news in the same way?




Yes we should have a better governing body and better deals, but again that wasn't what I've been asking. You avoided most of the questions asked about why you and others don't like it when the RFL don't announce the bad stuff like they do the good stuff.

You haven't just gone on about the previous deals, but also how the RFL actually came out and bigged them up (as if this is a surprise or shouldn't have been done). How dare they come out and "justify the wagon deal", should've said it was rubbish. How dare they come out and say "Foxy Bingo and Heinz Big Soup were better than a big naming rights sponsor".......suppose they should've said it was worst, that would've strengthen links with those companies and made the RFL look even more attractive to potential future sponsors. "Oh we'll sponsor RL, that sport that criticises it's own sponsorship deals in the media."

"when the news is good, the RFL roll out the full press machine. When the news is not so good, the RFL hide behind the door and hope it'll go away."

Did this Gutterfax character really say this?

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say, why on earth would any organisation want to use PR to put 'not so good' news out? I hope gutter fax doesn't work in marketing or PR.

Where did I say that they should use PR to put out not so good news? Please....feel free to highlight where I said that! You can frame your opinion in any way you like, but no matter how hard you look, you won't find anything where I have said that.

You joined this forum in Dec 2011....I suspect I was doubting the ability of the RFL to attract a decent level of interest and investment in the game long before then. You starting your whining with the above doesn't add any more credence to your opinion by the way......it just makes you sound like a whining complaining trying to attract the attention of moderators because someone has an opinion different to yours..........kind of like THIS IDIOT BELOW....

This is a thread about the title sponsor of SL. To understand how this deal stacks up in the realm of UK sports sponsorship, it will be compared to other sports as well as it's previous incumbents. This is not a drift, but you too are a whining who since being shown up in the attendance spat by Billy is now trying to pick another argument you won't win!



For the record, posting chapter and verse about how you used to enjoy these forums and how annoying Gutterfax is in random threads is ACTUALLY causing thread drifts and against the AUP.

Back on thread.

The Chairman of Wakefield has apparently confirmed that a portion of the deal in CPA (as was Foxy Bingo). This is most assuredly a step up from the Stobart deal, but is definitely still not in the same ball park as we used to get from Engage. The owner of Salford doesn't seem as impressed with the deal!