www.code13rugbyleague.com/2012/0 ... bart-deal/ Partnership coming to an end in 2013. Rfl suggesting it has been a great success. thoughts?

www.code13rugbyleague.com/2012/0 ... bart-deal/ Partnership coming to an end in 2013. Rfl suggesting it has been a great success. thoughts?

good move at the time, as nobody was offering any cash.

right move now, if the rfl think somebody will stump up.

whether they can prove their claim that it's increased tv figures as a result of a few trucks on the road i would question, let's hope the rfl have a paying title sponsor or two lined up.

I wonder if they would have scrapped it if the Bulls wouldn't have cost them so much this season?
I initially thought it was a great idea, but you just don't see enough of the sponsored lorries for it to make an impact on our game in my opinion.

They were - a bookie was offering just short of a million quid.

This will go down as one of the most one-sided sponsorship deals in the history of sports marketing; it should be consigned to the 'never again' pile and referred back to at RFL HQ only when they're training their marketing exec's how not to strike a sponsorship deal.

i see your point, i don't think that a family sport should actively promote gambling. yes there was an offer on the table, but it wasn't in the best interest of the sport. i think the rfl did the right thing here.

it wouldn't have saved bradford, i think it's cost each sl club about £70k each - and to be fair we've waster more than that on steve southern.

I'm not sure I agree - some people have a problem with gambling, but the majority of people do it for fun with no ill effects; we seem ok with Magners Cider, so I don't see why we draw an arbitrary line at an online bookie.

i kind of know what you mean. i gamble very small amounts, my biggest bet this year was £5 at 7/2 on wakey winning last night. i do however get deal/offer after deal/offer thrown at me from the online bookies clearly aimed at fostering an addiction with gambling. gambling will always be there, but it rips lives and families apart, the same can be said of alcohol of course! i'm not a puritan or anything, but on balance i think the rfl did the right thing turning away a bookie as title sponsor.

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.

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.