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!

Hear Hear. I thought was just me who gets tired of Gutter's drivel

Hear Hear. I thought was just me who gets tired of Gutter's drivel

Hear hear. Thought to was must me that is bored of Gutter's drivel. (And repeated on most threads)