I'm personally convinced we could get a big main sponsor if we picked a brewer. As probably THE main thing that defines your average rugby fan is drinking a lot of beer, it mystifies me why it was deemed verboten. What is the RFL - a subdivision of the Dept of Health?

Beats me FA. I can understand not having the tobacco companies involved but booze is different. Guinness sponsored the Tri Nations IIRC or it may have been a test series. They're a more credible brand than FoxyBingo.

In the recent past we've had Engage, Powergen and Tetley's. Big brands. the game needs to aim higher than where they are. The climate is as difficult as it's ever been but that's no excuse for settling for what we have.

I agree also about the need for stability in the way the game is structured. The proposed new structure with a middle 8 teams seems so needlessly complicated and full of pitfalls that it'd be a turnoff for fans and sponsors. Just what we don't need. The game's biggest problem is the lack of money coming in. We need to raise the profile. Internationals are the best way of doing that. I so hope the World Cup is a success. After that we need an international programme set out for the next 4 years so sponsors can be wooed. Beneath that we need a solid league structure that is easily understood that fans and businesses can get behind.

I would have less problem with a brewer, though the chances of an organic, zero carbon, real ale micro-brewery deliverying by shire horse outbidding what Guiness pay yawnion are slim, than I would tobacco or gambling. Though the latter 2 are preferable to lager. But don't Tetleys still sponsor us, so breweries are not totally verboten?

Although I am happy enough with 14 teams or 12 Teams with a top 4 or 6 or 8 play off, I don't think the permutations of league or play off matter a jot to your floating punter. Yawnion is a mystery to 99% of the population with its unfathomable laws & lack of excitement, with endless cup competitions; cricket is becoming crass & vulgar apart from test matches; yet it doesn't put crowds or sponsors off because they just want to be associated with something regarded as trendy & successful. The level of corruption in cricket & horse racing would have led to RL being banned from TV.

And that's another weird thing, having sponsors like Tetleys seems to be a bit like a dirty open secret, everyone knows you do it, but you don't like to publicise it. I agree it is totally ridiculous that they can sponsor a stand, or whatever, but not be the main shirt sponsor. Nobody even attempts to explain the mad reasoning behind this. If they ever did.

I'd just get on to the brewers and to hell with it.

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.