Must be some reason why SKY aren't the main sponsor.

Why? What actually is the difference?

His question is stupid. It implies one or the other, when they are completely non-exclusive. Hence he sounds like a tool.

His question doesnt imply they are mutually exclusive at all? What a strange thing to say.

Smokey! ,pull yer keks up, yer harris is showing again

Again a very strange thing to say.

Anyway, we should all accept that you should have just one title sponsor, and definitely, not numerous sponsors because it's obvious for reasons we aren't going to say and it leaves a PERCEPTION of being tinpot.

Yes, you PERCIEVE it to be OK, while the rest of the world PERCIEVE it to be tinpot

Having a main title sponsor does not stop any other partner sponsors, have a look at a Formula 1 car, or even a SL rugby shirt

Or even the UEFA Champions league, and the Uefa European championships, and the NFL, and the fifa world cup............oh hang on.........

But all our clubs have main sponsors who take pride of place on the shirt and maybe elsewhere as well.

Saints have Typhoo, and they have just extended the deal for a further year. Typhoo sponsor one family stand at Langtree Park as well as being the primary shirt sponsor.

How did Saints manage to attract a nationally recognised brand like Typhoo but the RFL cannot do the same thing for the sport as a whole? Could it possibly be that the relevant staff at the RFL are simply not up to the job?

As it says on the ' wiki ' UEFA sponsorship page " Unlike most national competitions

So yes a Continent wide or worldwide competition can have the pulling power to bring in massive multinationals, and they would be stupid not to, but comparing Ford, Gazprom, Hieneken and Mastercard to ' contra ' deals with foxy bingo is quite ridiculous, then again you're good at that

At the level SL is a main sponsor should be the aim, to suggest otherwise is stupid

So your assertion that deals with multiple partners instead of a title sponsor makes a competition look tinpot isnt disproved by what are probably the 4 biggest sports competitions in the world having multiple partners instead of a title sponsor because them having multiple sponsors is actually because they are the very opposite of tinpot. Yeah, that makes sense

can you explain why we didnt look tinpot in comparison when our title sponsor was a small northern financial firm and the RU premiership is sponsored by the 6th largest insurance firm in the entire world and the PL is sponsored by the 7th largest bank in the world?

Exhibit Ahttps://www.marketingweek.co.uk/engage-ends-super-league-sponsorship/3025666.articlerl
£1.2 Million a year......targeted audience by the sponsor identified and results achieved

Exhibit Bhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/16729988rl
A few Liveried trucks but no cash.....no targetting, just mobile ads for SKY TV.

Exhibit Chttps://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12207/8428933/No-sponsor-yet-for-rugby-league-s-Super-League-or-Championshiprl
No liveried Trucks and No cash.....


£1.2 million a year seems like a lottery win compared to the status we have now.....and I believe that at the time it was the biggest naming rights deal for SL financially.

Exactly. Those competitions could easily have a title sponsor. My guess is that a rational economic decision was taken that it was more profitable to allow several MAJOR BRANDS to 'share the glory'. My next guess is that in the case of RFL, their problem wasn't one of being overwhelmed by brands queueing up to sponsor us, and thus their coming up with a strategy to let them all have a slice.

The problem, as usual, is the excuse making, instead of saying "you know what, I've failed, you need to let someone else have a go".