Heh. But I meant Old Trafford as I typed, not Wembley. It may well at some point be even easier to get within one game of Wembley. You'll never get a game against a non-SL side on the way to Old Trafford. Hence "it will never be that easy to get to Old Trafford." Welcome back RER regardless.

Is it right the RFL turned down a bookmaker for main sponsor 2 year ago because didn't want to be associated with gambling,so gave away the rights to Eddie Stobart for frig all

Talk about a gamble that didn't pay off

Why on earth is a bookmaker sponsoring the super league wrong,we all like a bet

Yes it was understood to be Betfair that were interested. Another RFL masterstroke .

I can kinda understand the prohibition on betting sponsorship. I'm not entirely convinced I agree with it, but I do think there's a line somewhere and the Ockers regularly cross it.

Fox has a pre-game and half time report on the odds from the FootyTab's HQ and Channel 9 have the owner of the biggest gambling company in the country paying them to offer odds from the sideline of the main Friday night game to one of the biggest weekly TV audiences. I think that's just weird and it makes me cringe. I don't know why it makes me cringe because hours and hours of racing coverage doesn't, and that's the same thing writ large. I guess it's just what you're used to, and the FootyTab has been huge over there for a long time now.

What I don't understand is why there's a prohibition on gambling sponsorship but FoxyBingo get to waltz in. Paying for the chance of a prize is somehow not gambling? Really?

I'm of the mind that if the activity isn't illegal then there should be no ban on advertising it and therefore the RFL shouldn't stop taking sponsorship. When beer and betting are integral parts of the sporting experience why the hell would you not want to take their money? With the parlous state of rugby league finances we should be the last sport that's turning money away for the sake of some holy crusade. Beggars belief really.

But they didn't. Otherwise there would have been a contract.

I have seen the misery, destruction & sometimes death that gambling & alcohol can lead to more than once. I also take great pleasure in the latter & very occasionally the former. Alcohol reputedly costs our health service billions & chokes up A&E. I don't give a toss how much tax is received from alcohol. WHen society is just about money & not value or quality we are on a slippery slope.

I take your point tigertot but I'm happy enough for rugby league to take money from brewers and gamblers just as rugby union and snooker do. I think the problems of addiction run deeper than being exposed to the name of a beer producer or gambling company in a sporting environment. There's nothing wrong with either in moderation.

Eh

RL had a contract with Stobart. You can't get something for nothing in a contract, hence we did not give it away for frig all as you state.

There is a law banning sports sponsorship [or at least shirt advertising in France so as we have a French club in the league it might be a bit difficult to have a brewery?