But that Third largest brewer in the world already sponsors a fine Rugby League Stadium the John Smiths stadium, I have enjoyed some Rugby Hospitality at the expense of Heineken International. They also use Salford city stadium as a venue for national conferences. To me it sounds like they would invest more in rugby League if they could, but The RFL don't allow sponsorship of teams or competitions by drinks companies do they so that's why we end up with soup sponsors.

I do honestly believe its down to the RFL's ability to go and find sponsors rather than professional company directors looking at the demographics of northern people and saying "its not worth sponsoring RL as its fans have no money and any they do have they spend in bingo halls and chip shops".

If it isn't down to the RFL's inability to do its job properly why have Wire been able to Acquire Emirates as a sponsor yet still no sponsor for Superleague.......?

I would also firmly believe Rugby union would never have a sponsor that didn't portray the sport in a less than "premium" light and if Bet Fred offered more than Aviva they would say no thanks.....

Quote Finfin="Finfin"That's quite a change of mindset needed for me and others, as previously crude Sky viewing figures, rather than specifically designed category adjusted figures, have generally been held up to show RL in a favourable light against RU. That's presumably snooker and darts down the swanee as well. Does anyone have any figures for how much of their income Sky Sports derive from subscriptions against advertising income?'" I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.

Quote Finfin="Finfin"That's quite a change of mindset needed for me and others, as previously crude Sky viewing figures, rather than specifically designed category adjusted figures, have generally been held up to show RL in a favourable light against RU. That's presumably snooker and darts down the swanee as well. Does anyone have any figures for how much of their income Sky Sports derive from subscriptions against advertising income?'" I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.

I think that Suzy raises some important points here. But it's too easy to make generalisations about viewers. Taking Dave's point. How do they know the profile?

For example - I'm a graduate as are the other three members of my family all of whom watch Wigan regularly. I wouldn't mind betting that most of the posters on here are also graduates, which puts us all firmly in the middle class categories that advertisers are interested in. The chip eating stereotype that Suzy alluded to is just that a stereotype and whilst there may be an element of truth in it, it is lazy and misses the demography by a mile.

The World Cup illustrated that Rugby League can be a national game watched by thousands of people from across all strata of society. When I went to Wemley and Cardiff to watch England I was surrounded by people from well outside the 'heartland'.

The failure to promote the game to big business lies at the door of the RFL. They have a magnificent product, as proved by the World Cup and Super League Grand Final. They need to do a better job. Personally I would give Sally Bolton the top job and move the 'Fat Controller' aside.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder how many on here knew that Sally Bolton was once on the "board" at Wigan. I think she held the position of Chief Exec back in the early 2000's.

Chip eating stereotypes aside, the fact remains that the lower socio-economic classes are largely concentrated in the north (and the south west), and thus the advertising revenue available is adjusted accordingly. There will be pockets of affluence (Wilmslow, Alderley Edge for eg), but it's not libellous to marry the M62 corridor to some pretty poor boroughs.

In any case, weren't we supposed to be getting an announcement of new sponsors on the back of Friday's meeting?

I think it's fair to say that if Wiganers ran the game from top to bottom we would all be better off. What's Maurice up to these days?

I'm sorry but that is NOT fact.

Lower socio economic classes can be found all over the country. What about parts Scotland/parts of Wales/the Midlands/The north east etc. , as well as Inner London (some of the poorest boroughs in the M62 corridor like Knowsley hardly play any RL at all - confusing isn' it?)

The 'pockets of affluence' extend to all big cities in the north (Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds/Bradford/Hull) larger towns (too numerous to mention) as well as parts of West Lancashire/North Yorkshire. Then there's seaside towns like Blackpool/Lytham/Southport. Not to mention places like Parbold/Crosten/Rufford.

There are plenty of affluent people in the north to target (not just in Cheshire), many of whom watch football and pack grounds out all over the north paying a lot more than RL clubs charge.

I would argue that there are plenty of people from all socio-economic groups that RL can appeal to and the failure to find sponsorship lies at the RFL door.

So, who is he??

Not getting into an argument, but: yes it is.
A couple of years ago. the bottom 10 regions by wealth (earned wage) were Knowsley, Blackburn, Middlesborough, Dundee, Sunderland, Leicester, Caerphilly, Stoke, Blackpool & Hull.
It's a generalisation, but a broadly accurate one that outside the London commuter belt wages and social classification are (at least perceived to be) lower.

I think that the point that we are argueing about is whether RL as a sport can be marketed succesfully in the north. Would it be fair to say that you think (because of what you have stated) that it can't, whereas I would argue that there are plenty of people in the north from all socio-economic groups to market the game to - just as football does.

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.'" Yes your assumptions are frightening. I'm very tempted to write to Sky with a Subject Access Request asking to see what information they have on me.

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.'" Yes your assumptions are frightening. I'm very tempted to write to Sky with a Subject Access Request asking to see what information they have on me.

I would argue that advertising split, if the 10m subs are accurate they would average £60 a month to generate that revenue, so if you half it then 50/50 would be worst case imo
RL has been weak because it has been divided and has poor leaders, but if 100,000 had sky subs for RL alone then that's about £70m pa - so how do end up with what we do?
We represent fantastic value to sky and hopefully BT may see this and force the correct rates to be paid