So you'd expect the RWC in a country of 4.2 million to average the same as a RWC in a country of 60 million would you

I don't see how pointing out the different in size of potential audience is making an excuse or shifting goalposts.....but I do see you decrying the comparison between the 2 codes before trying to score points against the slower but infinitely bigger and more popular code



Back on thread.

As the Wakefield owner has just apparently announced, the new sponsorship deal is not 750k a year.

Given Bradford get 300k a year for their shirts and naming rights to the Iconic Odsal, this deal with FU is looking anything but super. Get ready for emails from your clubs and adverts on club pages offering FU energy services.......kid of like the foxy bingo game changing deal from 2013.

||||||||||||||||||||||| >> Carp carp carp carp

You can call it what you want, but don't be under the illusion it's good deal. At £250k a year it's £343 a week per club better than the Stobart deal but £1,300 a week less per club than Engage.........The RFL press department will have been fielding calls all week from Journalists enquiring as to the details of the deal. If they were good, then we'd have read about them by now...they aren't!

Two organisations not disclosing the financial details of a deal is hardly a shock.

I do wonder what people expect at times, Keith Chegwin knocking at the door of Red Hall with a massive cheque signed to the RFL perhaps.

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....and when it doesn't, we get press releases like last years declaration that lots of small deals are better than one big one.

The Irony of some RL clubs wanting more control over the commercials is delicious.....especially if the "cost per connection" part of this deal is linked directly to individual clubs as opposed to the collective

Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I'm still to see any figure quoted other than £750k per year.
I also don't remember other sponsorship amounts being directly disclosed.

Why do some people on here get so bothered by this?

A company/business/organisation/sports club has good news, so it makes a noise about it......what do you expect? It has bad/disappointing news and people can't understand why they don't shout it from the rooftops, really?

People go on about what the RFL actually does to attract new people/sponsors etc. to the game because they "want the sport to grow" but they then want them to come out and reveal all the bad points in public.....Why? It makes no sense, it clearly wouldn't help the sport, seems the only reason why is so some can point at it and say "oh look how s**t, I was right all along."

In a normal 9 to 5 business, if the owner or manager you worked for had potential clients/customers visiting. You would expect/want them to promote the company well and talk it up and highlight the positives, not tell them all the horrors. If you were buying a house or a used car you would expect the salesperson to tell you how good it all is, not point out all the bad points.

The problem is that the RFL (and SL chairmen) painted themselves into a very public corner with the Stobart deal. They (the RFL) went to great lengths to justify the wagon deal as having a value of 2 million a year in exposure, when in reality, SKY Sports got a load of free adverts. Last year they didn't managed to monatise the naming rights at all and instead told us that Foxy Bingo and Heinz Big Soups were better than a big naming rights sponsor.......this year, they have managed to secure a naming rights sponsor, who operates in a massive CPA/Associate market place and in an industry that rarely spends any "up front" cash on marketing strategies. As such, they have remained tight lipped regarding the actual mechanics of this, but the Wakefield boss has gone on record (apparently) as saying it is not 750k a year.

I believe it is an associate/CPA deal with the first payment of 250k for each year assured against the first 5,000 RL utility swappers with the rest paid out at somewhere between 55 and 75 a pop thereafter.

I am happy that the RFL have managed to sell something that they previously gave away, but I am not happy as a supporter of the game and as someone who wants it to prosper, at the very likely structure of this deal.....it essentially gives the Utility supplier access to 60k fans in attendance each week and 300k viewers on SKY TV for very little assured revenue!

Quote gutterfax="gutterfax"You don't care...but If you think the drop in attendances was bad for RWC 2011, look away when it comes to the increase in 2015 you really are an idiot aren't you? New Zealand, population 4 million and change....RLWC 2013 host nations 100,000,000+.........which comp has a million more spectators and not a double header in sight? The combined attendances from the 13 RLWC's 1954-2008 was less than the 2007 RWC managed on its own......do you want to compare the World Cups some more? As for the Sponsorship deal......if it were all cash, the RFL would have said it was. It is a contra deal with a % of the money dependant on how many fans sign up to this company for gas and power. If you think otherwise, then fine, but it would show exactly how naïve and in denial you really are '" Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.

Quote gutterfax="gutterfax"You don't care...but If you think the drop in attendances was bad for RWC 2011, look away when it comes to the increase in 2015 you really are an idiot aren't you? New Zealand, population 4 million and change....RLWC 2013 host nations 100,000,000+.........which comp has a million more spectators and not a double header in sight? The combined attendances from the 13 RLWC's 1954-2008 was less than the 2007 RWC managed on its own......do you want to compare the World Cups some more? As for the Sponsorship deal......if it were all cash, the RFL would have said it was. It is a contra deal with a % of the money dependant on how many fans sign up to this company for gas and power. If you think otherwise, then fine, but it would show exactly how naïve and in denial you really are '" Raving success for the home nation! I love the spin in this one, were you involved in the press release? Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) has welcomed the news that the organisers of Rugby World Cup 2011 have posted a tournament end loss 20 per cent better than forecast, capping off a successful event that exceeded all expectations. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011) today announced a loss of NZ $31.3 million from staging the seventh Rugby World Cup which is NZ $8 million lower than forecast. www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/ ... 62338.html Are you 27% out on this prediction as well lol.

Gutters can you give me a link to ANY announcement of direct value of a sponsorship by the code, club or sponsor? Not journo speculation but an official confirmation of amount. In my memory I can't think of one.

You are merely negatively speculating, which we all know you are wanton to do, hopefully you are as correct as your RLWC predictions!

What were these "great lengths" they went to exactly? So they bigged up the deals they made, again what do you expect?

What would be achieved if they made a lot of noise about how bad or wrong previous deals were? Especially at a time when new main sponsors are needed.

In the infamous attendance thread one of the reasons for its creation was apparently because Nigel Wood highlighted raises in attendance in 2012 but didn't gather the press around to tell them about drops in 2013.

It's funny that the same posters who want the RFL to highlight negative points in the game to the media are the same ones you'll find criticising this deal for the next few years. If you think this new sponsor & deal are bad then what do you think we'd have gotten if the RFL had gone looking for sponsors on the back of quotes from Wood highlighting drops in attendance and previous poor choice of sponsor with no money involved?

Their's accountability, then their's stupidity. Some peoples version of the former is more actually the latter.

you're assuming that this "deal" runs its course.....the thing with these sorts of deals is that if the conversion rate doesn't suit the "sponsor" they are more than likely to walk away from it and go to another aggregate site.
As for wanting the RFL to highlight negatives? don't talk daft. Nobody expects them to report negatives, but what we should be able to expect as fans of the game is a governing body that can deliver paying sponsors, not companies that want access to their audience with a promise of funds IF that audience buys.....and that is what this deal is. It will come out in the wash eventually....and the usual apologists will line up to whine about the recession and how hard times are.....