Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Should the RFL take some responsibility from the clubs?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 Marty Funkhouser

Marty Funkhouser
  • Coach
  • 372 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:51 AM

And that is the black and white of it.

One area where I do think we may have stitched ourselves up somewhat is around the ethics of sponsorship. This is mentioned in the Telegraph article, and seems to have been a move since Lewis took over. We have avoided things like alcohol and gambling as major sponsors. Personally I would take these sponsorship deals.

Most sports have deals with Alcohol companies - RL now does not have an official beer (although Magners do sponsor many clubs). Nobody looks down at the Heineken Cup because of it's association to lager.

Gambling is a slightly more contentious one due to some of the betting scandals knocking round sport, but then we should not forget that it is a perfectly legal activity in this country.

I can understand the approach, but I do think it leaves us in a more difficult position than many sports now, when tbh we are already well behind these sports in the queue.

Agree with that Dave. Principles are fine but they don't pay the bills. And as you say, there's nothing illegal there.


Spot on both of you..

Why the RFL took its "ethical/altruistic" stance when it is governing a mainly working class sport is incomprehensible and has proved costly..

We used to be sponsored upto the eye balls with six sponsored tournaments , heavily sponsored internationals etc but we were in partnership with companies who had something to gain i.e the beer and cigarette companies and the like. We need some realism with regards the basis of our game.

#42 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,004 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:56 AM

I think the thing the RFL hung their hat on was that Betfair wanted complete coverage, naming rights, goal post coverings etc etc.. and the RFL thought they could make more by keeping all those elements seperate.. and when it came to selling those rights, they quite simply couldn't

Theres an interview on http://www.runningrugby.com with the new RFL marketing guy James Mercer. Well worth a look.

That would be a reasonable stance I reckon. If someone offered a million quid for all the areas that could be sold separately for £1.5M, it would not be unreasonable to hold out for the separate deals. That these separate deals don't materialize is another argument.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#43 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,004 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:02 AM

We used to be sponsored upto the eye balls with six sponsored tournaments , heavily sponsored internationals etc but we were in partnership with companies who had something to gain i.e the beer and cigarette companies and the like. We need some realism with regards the basis of our game.


I'd definitely agree with the realism bit but we shouldn't assume all (or even most) RL fans are woodbine smoking bitter drinkers. But at the same time not pretend we're all city types or middle class.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#44 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,147 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:05 AM

We used to be sponsored upto the eye balls with six sponsored tournaments ,


And yet the game went bust.

Perhaps those deals were worth jack all.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#45 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,798 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:48 AM

We used to be sponsored upto the eye balls with six sponsored tournaments , heavily sponsored internationals etc but we were in partnership with companies who had something to gain i.e the beer and cigarette companies and the like. We need some realism with regards the basis of our game.

Two of our tournaments had to drop their sponsor - Silk Cut and Regal were no longer legal sponsors. Other tournaments were scrapped. We had 5 title sponsors this year (Carnegie, Stobart, Co-Op, Northern Rail, Heinz)/

You could easily argue that recently we were 'sponsored up to the eyeballs':

engage
Irn Bru
Heinz
ISC
Steeden
Valvoline
Co-Operative
Gillette
Polar
Northern Rail
Sky Sports
BBC
Premier Sports
Carnegie
DeWalt
William Hill
Emirates

Edited by Dave T, 25 October 2012 - 10:49 AM.


#46 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,071 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:29 AM

Theres an interview on http://www.runningrugby.com with the new RFL marketing guy James Mercer. Well worth a look.

Requires registration, which while free probably has a lot of faff and is for those involved in rugby. Naymind.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#47 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 667 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:43 AM

Company A offers money to sponsor SL
Company B offers to put some posters on the side of their trucks but no money

Hmmm let me think, i'm running a business thats short of money, I know i'll take company B sponsorship !

Enough said about the financial competence of the current Red Hall set up !!!


Blame the clubs for that not the RFL.

#48 Spidey

Spidey
  • Coach
  • 449 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

Still yet to be seen what the impact of the Stobart deal is... next year we may secure 2 x, 3x or 4x what a paid sponsorship for 2012 would have got, it was a gamble to promote the brand, we'll just have to see if it pays off

#49 Marty Funkhouser

Marty Funkhouser
  • Coach
  • 372 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:22 PM

And yet the game went bust.

Perhaps those deals were worth jack all.


Sorry mate when the did the game go bust...??? I must have been asleep for a few years or do you mean the last few years with at least five Elite level clubs in danger of going under. If your thinking pre SL I think you may be confusing the Wigan club of Maurice Lindsay ,that made millionaires out of quite a few people, with the game as a whole.

When i get the opportunity i will upload some accounts from the early 1980's that show my club making a profit of over £270,000 pounds. Whats the equivalent now?? Million plus certainly...never gonna happen under the current model of operation. Staff costs alone for a modern SL club are off the scale compared to a few years ago. SL has become one big trough...

Edited by Marty Funkhouser, 25 October 2012 - 12:22 PM.


#50 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,186 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:53 PM

@hindiexiii

its quite interesting really.. they don't bombard you with emails or anything. worth the registration

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#51 Manx RL

Manx RL
  • Coach
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

http://www.google.co...mKxcp7A&cad=rja


A 'worth' deal is not the same as a cash money deal. The stobbart deal had a 'worth' value too.
- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

#52 southstand loiner

southstand loiner
  • Coach
  • 2,657 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

Your last sentence is precisely the reason for revenue sharing. Does it work? Maybe not in the UK but in the NFL it is wildly siuccessful.


but we are not a major sport like NFL we are a niche sport and despite what many people want thats what we will be for a long time to come so to have central funding only would be a disaster as the local sponsors who put in say £10,000 a year for there local clubs would be lost to the clubs and if you add all those small sponsors up they add up to a pretty big amount and do you really think national sponsorships will increase to cover those losses let alone produce large additional income
ah a sunday night in front of the telly watching old rugby league games.
does life get any better .

#53 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,471 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

I agree with that, but I do not see that the the theory breaks down. Rather, I see it that the RFL side of the deal needs to do better.

The RFL should in my view set, police and regulate the standards, which it very much does already. the comparison is say the Subway franchise..each one stands or falls by its compliance with the standards and by its own individual performance within that....but all within a strong and consistent framework that drives business (or fans) -strategic and tactical marketing, sales etc across the whole piece. I think the RFL have a long way to go in this but each year they are getting better.


I would agree with all of that in an ideal world. even spread across only the SL clubs however it would be quite an expensive project to operate effectively. As always it comes down to money and, if there is enough available to fund it, then it could only be a good thing.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#54 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,471 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:12 PM

We used to be sponsored upto the eye balls with six sponsored tournaments , heavily sponsored internationals etc but we were in partnership with companies who had something to gain i.e the beer and cigarette companies and the like. We need some realism with regards the basis of our game.


Yet the sport as a whole was still struggling financially even though the players and coaches were supposedly semi-pro.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#55 Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy
  • Coach
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:25 AM

Blame the clubs for that not the RFL.


Seem to remember 5 or 6 SL clubs voting against the deal but the RFL wen't ahead with it anyway ?

#56 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,798 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:09 AM

Seem to remember 5 or 6 SL clubs voting against the deal but the RFL wen't ahead with it anyway ?

The majority voted for it (although I believe the RFL voted for Catalan for some reason - I may have that wrong!)

#57 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,304 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

Seem to remember 5 or 6 SL clubs voting against the deal but the RFL wen't ahead with it anyway ?


Aye, thats democracy.
Posted Image

#58 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 667 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

Saint Toppy,

Yes 5 did not vote for it, so the majority voted for it. Or do you think they should have gone with a minority decision? By your logic at the last general election the majority of the electorate did not vote for the coalition so Labour should have remained in power.

Edited by dhw, 26 October 2012 - 09:39 AM.


#59 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,471 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:46 PM

Saint Toppy,

Yes 5 did not vote for it, so the majority voted for it. Or do you think they should have gone with a minority decision? By your logic at the last general election the majority of the electorate did not vote for the coalition so Labour should have remained in power.



That seems about right to me.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#60 southstand loiner

southstand loiner
  • Coach
  • 2,657 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

Saint Toppy,

Yes 5 did not vote for it, so the majority voted for it. Or do you think they should have gone with a minority decision? By your logic at the last general election the majority of the electorate did not vote for the coalition so Labour should have remained in power.


well thats conviinced me then lets go with the minority and get rid of the con/dems
ah a sunday night in front of the telly watching old rugby league games.
does life get any better .




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users