I personally think that Beer and Gambling is a bad idea just because I don't think it penetrates our target markets. I think we should aim more for a sponsor that would attract people from darn sarth such as insurance companies etc. that way we'd get more than money from the sponsor.

Also Aviva throw £5 million a year at union, even though they have lower viewing figures and a lower aggregate attendance. It surely doesn't take a genius to see that we should be looking for that kind of money with our viewing figures and attendances.

I reckon on average I see about 50 Stobart lorries a week on my journeys to and from work. In the 5 or 6 months since this deal was struck I have seen a grand total of ONE with SL branding on it.

It was and remains the most ridiculous deal the RFL have ever done, and I include buying Odsal lease in that!

Don't they drink or gamble darn sarth?

If it hadn't been banned, cigs would still be sponsoring everything in sight, and because it isn't banned anymore, that's why bookies do. I don't believe anyone started smoking or decides to have a bet because they sponsor a sporting event. Maybe they try another brand, but if you're going to smoke/drink/bet, you'll do it anyway.

We have a recent history with alcohol sponsorship:- Tetleys, Stones Bitter, Slalom....

I even remember years ago winning a crate of beer from Halifax RLFC after entering a competition in their programme! I was just about to start at Uni so it was a great way to make myself known in the halls of residence

i'm not sure that this counts as a scientific study.

associate sponsor maybe, main sponsor - no thanks. just my opinion.

Of course it's not scientific, but it's what I believe!



Why does being an associate sponsor make any difference? Hills were official RFL bookie for years, Fred's are the same for a few clubs and bingo and online bookmakers have sponsored other clubs. I don't quite understand the difference.

Fact remains, those who whinge about the Stobart deal then can't moan when ones offering cash are turned down on a 'moral' basis.

i think the associate sponsor thing is again, like the rest of this debate, subjective. it's commonplace to bet on sports, so having a small sponsor's logo for a bookies on a lapel or sleeve would be okay in my book, but to have them as a major sponsor of the comp or a team would be a bit much.

i still don't know where i stand on the stobart deal for certain, on balance i think it was the right deal at the time for the right reasons, and whilst i've seen many dozens of the trucks on the roads i'm just not sure how much benefit it brings or how it widens the appeal of the game.

i've only seen two on the same carrigeway as me which is when you get to read the details and look at the trucks, so i don't see how a non-league fan would even know the ones on the other side of the road related to rugby league as they flash past at 56mph in the opposite direction to themselves doing 70mph.

Maybe Stobarts have a smart logistics manager & he sent them all aorund the Olympic venues to maximise the publicity !

I do between 2 and 3 thousand miles a week and I have managed to spot 6, Crabtree twice and sindield once, no clue on the others as they where on the opposite carriage way, good idea in theory just nowhere near enough trucks for people to take notice.

Couple of suggestions here.

Sports Direct.com Super League

Iron Bru Super League

Gillette Super League