Not that one! This one! www.code13rugbyleague.com/2012/0 ... um=twitter

Not that one! This one! www.code13rugbyleague.com/2012/0 ... um=twitter

What a joke. Does stability not exist in the Rugby League dictionary

They will miss their large cash investement. Oh hang on...

Wouldn't surprise me that the RFL have done this so they can look to bring in some additional funds for other clubs. Bulls (maybe too late), Salford, Cas etc. could all do with another injection of cash per season.

If often read my own companies marketing material and ask myself which planet are these people are on, but I think it is accepted practice now just to say everyhting is perfect as often as possible until people accept that is is - or get rediculed for suggesting that perhaps the waggon is really missing all its wheels.

But just to help out a translation of one section of the press release : "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" - means "we realise we were mental to give the sponsorship for free and will ask for some cash next time!

That's unduly cynical. Even the RFL's and the deals greatest detractors surely never believed that the RFL intended to let their sponsorship go for "free" for ever? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the deal did broadly achieve what it was meant to?

I don't see why everyone isn't cheering. Those who liked the deal have got their way (and the figures suggest the exposure has been beneficial) and as the deal is not being extended, those who hate it should also be pleased.

I would however suggest to the RFL (and as they hang on my every word, they will take note) that next time round, they find someone with some spondoolicks. I hear CocaCola and McDonalds may be at a loose end soon . . .

More viewers = more money

If they seriously hit their targets, they have a chance to better these targets so that the next sponsorship deal commanded more cash. They must have previously calculated that clubs would be okay with no sponsorship cash for 3 years so there is no real need to cancel the deal.

It just seems a little coincidental that the deal is pulled just as there are rumours about other SL clubs close to the position the Bulls are in.

If only Brendan Hill was still playing they would have their perfect rolly-polly model!

Is there still anyone who seriously believes the sponsorship would have been taken if there had been a suitable (ie non fag ash and preferably not brewing), fee paying alternative? I guess that the cancelling means that one of the previously mentioned has been sourced for next season.

either that or Eddie Stobart no longer want to be associated with the super league due to pi55 poor management at clubs running up massive debts and a governing body that can't regulate to prevent it.

Ha ha, you are a card aren't you!!

It was a marriage made in heaven - Bulls and RFL. One lot sell season tickets and raise enough money to get them to the START of the season and when they run out look around for a patsy. "I know lets approach the guy that sold the sponsorship of SL to someone that promised to respray a truck". Unfortunatlet the RFL having wised up want a bit of collateral so we give them the lease to a ground that we won't be playing at next year because we've folded.
Now if only we could get Andrew Lloyd Webber to put music to this I think we can solve our cash flow problems, not sue we could get Michael Crawford to play the part of the hooker though.