If facts are your thing it's worth noting that the £1.7m (it wasn't £1.7m) was precisely 0% of the RFL's turnover as the RFL does not receive the SL naming rights monies.

D (for a long long time) which has led to A and furthering the increase of such happening further down the line, it has also not receded nor changed the perception of the nation of B.
C isn't too far down the list but worst of all E..giving away the lead sponsorship for basically zero and even if there was any gain from it it is almost immeasurable so again basically zero..
The damage to the game with successive s in charge goes back 20 odd years, it won't ever ever recover unless some miracle happens...

Really?
I was under the impression that the RFL's turn over includes all the SL monies such as sponsorship.

If I am wrong, then I'd be keen to see where the £1.85 million came from in the report below......
rlhttps://rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/RFL2011Report.pdfrl

......£1.85 million in 2011 sponsorship from Coop and Gillette??????..I think not.....

Wouldn't that include the Challenge Cup & 4 Nations sponsorship as well though? Which would sound about right for the £1.85m figure without the Engage sponsorship.

If the RFL don't receive the monies, who does?

Seems odd that the RFL would be trying to negotiate deals for which they will receive no revenue? Or that whoever does receive the £ would allow the RFL to do the negotiation on their behalf!!

Does Super League (Europe) Ltd still operate?

The massive difference that you want me to spell out for you is that the 3 minor sponsors announced to date this year are not worth the same as the last paying sponsor.....not by any stretch of even your often warped imagination!

The statement by the Comms guy was regarding his opinion that SL wasn't any better or worse off with a naming sponsor than say 10 minor sponsors.....and you feel the need to labour the point that he may be right.

Is he !

I don't think Smokey actually was saying that He was asking why you think it's worse IF the total amount of sponsorship income is the same.

you've put together a pretty convincing argument. Its an argument against a point nobody made but its an argument.

Though the evidence does seem to counteract your point that we had a title sponsor for years. Engage paid handsomely for it. When Engage left the PERCEPTION obviously didnt result in what you say it should.

I'm not defending anything. I asked why its worse to have a group of sponsors (like the Champions League) rather than 1 title sponsor if the total amount of sponsor income is the same. If its easier then think of it as a question about the CL or a random sports comp rather than SL, which seems to get you worked up. If a sports comp is receiving the same amount from several smaller sponsor deals rather than 1 big one, why is that a bad thing?

SL announce new sponsor rlRFL announce cash boostrl

just got to fnd another 12 sponsors , or maybe 13, I've lost count ..

Half our elite league is comprised of teams from northern towns. Can't be an easy job to tempt the global, blue chip companies that many fans seem to think would be queuing up, but for the incompetence of the RFL.

I have always thought that super league should try and get sponosred by a major australian or NZ company, like fosters or Air New Zealand