Apologies if mentioned elsewhere but press release just came through at work - mutually agreed to end deal after one year.


Rugby League’s flagship competition, the Super League, has begun the search for a new title sponsor from the 2013 season onwards to build on its successful marketing collaboration with the Stobart Group.

Since entering into an innovative partnership for 2012, the Stobart Super League has increased its TV audience by 45 per cent and experienced record attendances to elevate the sport’s profile to unprecedented levels.

That success has put Super League in a prime position to increase commercial revenues and accelerate its development under a new title sponsor from the 2013 season onwards.

Super League Commercial Director James Mercer said: “We are delighted at the success of our one-year partnership with Stobart and the exposure that this ground-breaking concept has created.

“The partnership has placed the sport in a wonderful position to move into the next cycle of our commercial strategy in 2013.

“Innovation has always been at the heart of the Super League and this collaboration showcased the creativity and unity of our clubs.

“With a combined TV audience of over 25 million, huge attendance levels and a national and international expansion the sport is well-placed for an exciting future”.

Super League (Europe) and the Stobart Group have mutually agreed to end a collaboration which has grown TV audiences on Sky Sports to record levels in a season which is set to see aggregate attendances break the two million mark for the first time in history.

The decision to end the partnership was based on Super League having achieved its target of increased visibility and profile and the need to realise the next objective of monetising the competition’s title sponsorship.

Stobart Group Chief Executive Andrew Tinkler said: “Stobart Group is pleased to have contributed to the promotion and success of the Super League in 2012, with a 45 per cent increase in television audiences.

“The plan was always to review the partnership after the first year and we’ve decided to step back and allow the RFL to work with commercial partners that can offer the financial support it needs to further develop.

“As such both parties have mutually agreed to end the collaboration at the close of the season."

correct decision to end this silly deal! clubs need money not free advertising from sponsors!

Give Adam the job to get SL a sponsor, he'll do us reet

Good. Maybe now the sport can get a proper sponsorship deal in place.

Also I can't see for the life of me how the increasing in viewing figures can in any way be attributed to the Stobart deal.

It can't. I think that's what you call 'spin'. They signed a sponsorship deal and the viewing figures went up, you can't prove that one is not related to the other so they say it is. In reality I can't imagine 50,000 people saw Danny Tickle's picture on the side of a lorry and suddenly decided to rush home and watch us play London Broncos on Sky.

The deal has done what it set out to achieve, if not better than that.

I applaud the RFL for taking a risk and thinking out of the box on this one

Having 100 adverts around the country for the game and Sky's coverage will have surely made a difference, even if it's not solely responsible for the 45% increase.

Hopefully they've got a company lined up to take the sponsorship straight away.

New sponser is neil hudgel law haha only joking

Hope he doesn't read that or it may give him an idea!

He's far too busy ranting in the Dull Daily Fail about how much he loves Cockaine and wants him back at Poorhouse Lane

Good. Costly mistake IMO glad it's over and done with.

Not sure it's done the game any harm but the clubs will be glad we are going back to a money based deal, as am I.

The 45% increase in viewing figures is excellent - but I suspect it is down more to the same factors that have seen crowds fall. People are staying in more and going out less, because they are reet proper skint. Still, 45% is very impressive. Any ideas how it compares with other sports?

If the increase was down to such a great deal they did with Stobart then why are they cancelling it? Seems they've finally realised they dropped a cobbler with this one. The RFL maybe also need the money themselves and with the Bradford situation and rumours of Salford needing cash that they now need a proper deal that actually gives them a revenue stream.

Thought when it was announced it was a stupid deal with only one winner and that been Stobart and still think its been a stupid deal.

Now, now... there's no need for that sort of behaviour around here!

Why would Stobart agree to end "by mutual consent" a deal that has cost them nothing financially??

We may have a new sponsor lined up and Stobart will get a sweetner to end early....just a thought

Monday nights had an effect on the viewing figures?

it's not ending early though, is it?

Good decision. A money based sponsorship deal is needed.

How has it cost them nothing financially?

Did those wraps on 100 trailers suddenly appear by magic?

They dont look they have had full wraps done only very large graphics, which in the grand scheme of things are probably not costing them an awful lot of money due to the amount they have done on the rest of the fleet. I think they may even have there own dept that does the graphics etc for the full fleet.

I know when we had all ours done it was a massive amount cheaper than a one off, nearly half the amount per vehicle.

So although there will no doubt be a cost it certainly won't be a fortune. I certainly believe Stobart have more than got there outlay back in regards to the amount of advertising profile they've got just by TV alone.

So the money can be pi[is[/ised away on more journeyman Aussie imports?

Even if the RFL find someone to match Engage's deal of £1.2m per year and it all goes to the 14 Superleague clubs, that's a whopping £85k each. Hardly the sum to make the difference between financial success and penury.

Any money raised from a new sponsorship deal should be distributed among Superleague clubs but only to be used in promoting an developing the youth game in their areas

Spot on.

When the Premierleague first got the Sky money, a couple of chairmen wanted to put the money into a pot to then distribute into grassroots football. Most of the other chairmen wanted the cash for their clubs instead.

All this extra cash, instead of being used sensibly, was used to compete with one another in the transfer market and on players wages, driving up the price of both and effectively leaving the clubs with less than before.

Luckily we have a salary cap though and while it's in force this type of scenario is unlikely to happen. I agree though, it'd be much more beneficial ploughing it into the youth system.

I love the way the RFL is still getting the blame for the Stobart deal.

The RFL employ IMG, a specialist sports marketing company to canvas for sponsorships, any deals are then put to the chairmen of Superleague clubs and they decide what to go for. The fact that a few have subsequentlyspoken out against the Stobart deal, simply suggests they don't like democracy if they don't get the decision they want. Tough.

IMG are probably working on around 20-25% of any deals, so it's in their best interests to maximise sponsorship revenues. The fact that the sport is not awash with money suggests that its value to odvertisers is somewhat less than many supporters feel it should be.

Surely they are still within their rights to voice their displeasure even if they lost the vote ? They have to abide by the decision of course but don't have to agree with it. Do people who complain about the Government on the Sin Bin dislike democracy as well ?



I agree the Chairmen got what they deserved as a group but a sport desperately needing cash couldn't afford to turn down real readies IMO - we can vex and moan about whether a few nice looking lorries made a difference - maybe they have - but the sport at club level is skint and indirect and potential benefits don't pay players and staff.