Sign in to follow this  
Chris22

Challenge Cup

Recommended Posts

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/54174/coral-to-sponsor-the-challenge-cup

Some good news in hear. A seven figure, two year sponsorship deal is pretty lucrative.

Catalans participating is great news but does little to hide the embarrassment caused. Hopefully Toronto's inclusion will follow.

Great that the women's game benefits from sponsorship and the semi final double header. Hopefully the BBC will stream online.

I would like to have seen a larger stadium than Bolton used considering that it sold out last year and Catalans naturally took few fans. I'd have like to have seen Bramall Lane or Elland Road used. 

Edited by Chris22
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now sponsored by Coral, and if the double header at Bolton didnt cheapen it enough and the 1895 double header at wembley didnt cheapen it enough, we now have the ambitious triple header at the University of Bolton stadium.

I look forward to 2020 to see the quarter finals held as a quadruple header on a Wednesday in Leigh.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news.

Basically the same sponsor as last year fully in line with RLs love affair with gambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not sure I see the logic in Ladbrokes departing as sponsor and Coral setting up, considering they are the same company now. Strange but positive to see it being a 7 figure deal over 2 years.

Not sure I see the benefit of having a triple header - it's good that the women's game is getting more exposure but given the double header sold out, it would be better if the women's final was made as either a standalone or combined elsewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its great that the woman get to have the final as an opener to the men's semifinal it will create a lot of exosphere for them but i think it should have been put on before the men's final, if we are going to claim that they are two equal games then they should have been put on the same day.

Thank god the RFL have come to an agreement with Catalan its criminal that the champions can't try to defend it, i hope an agreement is made with Toulouse and Toronto as well.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a sponsor but it would be interesting to know what the 7 figure deal over 2 years is and how it compares to previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good to finally get a sponsor on board. I'm not a big fan of the double header, or triple header as it is now, even though it sold out last year the stadium was never full as a load of people didn't show up until the 2nd game, or buggered off after the first and that don't look great on the box. Did notice at the bottom of the article that a second first round tie is gonna be streamed on our league as well as the BBC one so that's my weekend sorted! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

Yeah not sure I see the logic in Ladbrokes departing as sponsor and Coral setting up, considering they are the same company now. Strange but positive to see it being a 7 figure deal over 2 years.

Still operating as separate brands though. Clearly you know they are part of the same company now, but many people won't. They must have thought that it did well for Ladbrokes if they're happy for Coral to take over the mantle now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the draw has been made, how does that fit in with TO and TWP who have already  refusing to enter because of the Bond.  Were the RFL assuming they would be in and thus there will be a couple of byes once they withdraw.  Or was the draw made subsequent to both of them not being in the competition.

It all looks like a climb down from the RFL, all combined with a reduction of the sponsorship money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Given the draw has been made, how does that fit in with TO and TWP who have already  refusing to enter because of the Bond.  Were the RFL assuming they would be in and thus there will be a couple of byes once they withdraw.  Or was the draw made subsequent to both of them not being in the competition.

It all looks like a climb down from the RFL, all combined with a reduction of the sponsorship money. 

Yeah, draw was made after they decided they weren't taking part so they were never included in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Yeah, draw was made after they decided they weren't taking part so they were never included in it. 

Thank you for that, but on reflection I still wonder if the whole layout of the draw means there is no space for TO and TWP, or will there be any byes.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Thank you for that, but on reflection I still wonder if the whole layout of the draw means there is no space for TO and TWP, or will there be any byes.

The draw this year has been designed so that 12 championship sides come in at round 4 not 14, this has been determined right after those teams said they weren't entering. Thing with the challenge Cup is cos amateur sides are invited the RFL can just choose the right amount of teams they need to make it work as it were. 

So 52 teams round 1.

26 round two.

13 winners joined by 11 league 1 teams for 24 in round 3

12 winners joined by 12 champ sides not 14 as it would be with Toronto and toulouse in round 4.

12 winners joined by bottom 4 2018 super league (that's including London). 

8 winners joined by 8 2018 top 8 super league. 

Then quarters, semis and final. 

That's what I was meaning when I said they were never included, I was meaning the structure as a whole has been designed to not include them. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

The draw this year has been designed so that 12 championship sides come in at round 4 not 14, this has been determined right after those teams said they weren't entering. Thing with the challenge Cup is cos amateur sides are invited the RFL can just choose the right amount of teams they need to make it work as it were. 

So 52 teams round 1.

26 round two.

13 winners joined by 11 league 1 teams for 24 in round 3

12 winners joined by 12 champ sides not 14 as it would be with Toronto and toulouse in round 4.

12 winners joined by bottom 4 2018 super league (that's including London). 

8 winners joined by 8 2018 top 8 super league. 

Then quarters, semis and final. 

That's what I was meaning when I said they were never included, I was meaning the structure as a whole has been designed to not include them. 

Thank you for that. Really sad to see how this miserable Bond panned out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Manx RL said:

Good news.

Basically the same sponsor as last year fully in line with RLs love affair with gambling

Gambling companies are the only sponsors any sport can get now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris22 said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/54174/coral-to-sponsor-the-challenge-cup

Some good news in hear. A seven figure, two year sponsorship deal is pretty lucrative.

Catalans participating is great news but does little to hide the embarrassment caused. Hopefully Toronto's inclusion will follow.

Great that the women's game benefits from sponsorship and the semi final double header. Hopefully the BBC will stream online.

I would like to have seen a larger stadium than Bolton used considering that it sold out last year and Catalans naturally took few fans. I'd have like to have seen Bramall Lane or Elland Road used. 

Is it? only if you have a very low point at which you consider circa £500,000 per year for the whole competition and all the clubs plus the ladies comp to be a decent sum, I don't.

2009, it was state as fact that the final prize money would be £100k for the winners, with £35k for the runners up, our previous CEO James Rule said the 2008 final was worth £300-£400k all told despite us losing to Saints. Move forward a few years and Adam Pearson stated that getting to the final was worth £250k, that's somewhat of a downturn in monies overall despite ticket prices going up significant;ly since '08!

1998 Silk Cut sponsored the CC to the sum of £486,000 for that years tournament with £100k going to the winners, that's not changed really in 20 years.

An indication of this announcement being small potatoes/going backwards.

Edited by Denton Rovers RLFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking, you could belatedly introduce Toulouse and Toronto, if the will was there.

You would need to have a round 2A, which would feature four ties involving eight of the round 2 winners.  The winners of that quartet of fixtures would join the other five round two winners, so there would be nine teams joining the eleven from League 1 in round 3.  Round 3 would thus feature ten fixtures, the winners of which would join all fourteen championship sides in round 4.  After that, it is as you were in round 5 and beyond.

However, there are big 'if's in this arrangement!  How would the amateur sides react to, in some cases, having an extra game before they have a chance to face professional opposition?  What implications would the round 2A have for the competing sides' league commitments?  Incidentally, there are four weeks between rounds 2 and 3, so it could, at least theoretically, be fitted in.  Nevertheless, I am paying no regard to practical matters like organising team buses and so on.

But, as I say, it could be done!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the decision to take the semi-finals to Bolton for this year is the right decision.

The game has been announced early enough for general RL supporters to buy tickets well in advance to sell out the ground leaving the top and bottom tiers behind the goals for the four semi-finalists which each hold about 5000 (2500 per side) .

Bolton's ground is ideally placed and more importantly has excellent modern hospitality facilities available on all 4 sides of the ground which should help swell the RFL's coffers if they advertise well in advance, as that's where the money is made these days.

It also gives the RFL the opportunity to identify potential sponsors and 'wine and dine' to sell the game at the occasion to a wider audience.

IF the game sells out the 28,000 capacity and there's evidence to support the move to a larger stadium then where would you go?There's very few modern grounds with 35-45 capacities in the north of England, forget about grounds like Bramall Lane and Elland Road as they are traditional grounds with very poor hospitality facilities and the Ethiad, Anfield, Old Trafford and St James Park are too big.

Nothing looks better on TV than a full house, and that alone should help sell the game to sponsors

If the game sells out in advance, then the logical step to me is to develop the hospitality side of the event and increase the ticket price slightly to make more money without increasing costs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

I think the decision to take the semi-finals to Bolton for this year is the right decision.

The game has been announced early enough for general RL supporters to buy tickets well in advance to sell out the ground leaving the top and bottom tiers behind the goals for the four semi-finalists which each hold about 5000 (2500 per side) .

Bolton's ground is ideally placed and more importantly has excellent modern hospitality facilities available on all 4 sides of the ground which should help swell the RFL's coffers if they advertise well in advance, as that's where the money is made these days.

It also gives the RFL the opportunity to identify potential sponsors and 'wine and dine' to sell the game at the occasion to a wider audience.

IF the game sells out the 28,000 capacity and there's evidence to support the move to a larger stadium then where would you go?There's very few modern grounds with 35-45 capacities in the north of England, forget about grounds like Bramall Lane and Elland Road as they are traditional grounds with very poor hospitality facilities and the Ethiad, Anfield, Old Trafford and St James Park are too big.

Nothing looks better on TV than a full house, and that alone should help sell the game to sponsors

If the game sells out in advance, then the logical step to me is to develop the hospitality side of the event and increase the ticket price slightly to make more money without increasing costs

 

Didn't we hear all this last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday




League Express - Online Now

Rugby League World - Issue 453 - Out Now