Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Super League & Betfred sign record spons

  1. #1
    Learning All The Songs St Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    1,273
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Super League & Betfred sign record spons

    Super League and Betfred have announced the biggest commercial deal in the history of the competition by extending their partnership for a further two seasons.

    The multi-million-pound investment by Betfred, owned by Rugby League fan and Salfordian Fred Done, will see the current three-year partnership extended until the end of the 2021 season.

    https://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...onsorship-deal

  2. #2
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by St Willy View Post
    Super League and Betfred have announced the biggest commercial deal in the history of the competition by extending their partnership for a further two seasons.

    The multi-million-pound investment by Betfred, owned by Rugby League fan and Salfordian Fred Done, will see the current three-year partnership extended until the end of the 2021 season.

    https://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...onsorship-deal
    Brilliant news, won't be long no before the miserable negative people find a way to complain

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Brilliant news, won't be long no before the miserable negative people find a way to complain
    The negative would appear to be the sport struggles to attract bluechip partners (the term sponsor and its connotations belong in the 1990's) and seems wedded to partners that still belong to the stereotype the game wants to move itself away from.

    The positive is it is much likelier to have been negotiated more competently than the RFL would have delivered; my understanding is that this was negotiated by the Super League commercial chief commercial officer under Robert Elstone's leadership. With cheap dig intended, the top level of the sport now has a deal that amounts much more than the infamous RFL negotiated deal which sold naming rights in exchange for little more than a few naff tarpaulin adverts across a bunch of haulage trucks.
    Last edited by eddiewaringsflatcap; 23rd May 2019 at 13:58.

  4. #4
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    The negative would appear to be the sport struggles to attract bluechip partners (the term sponsor and its connotations belong in the 1990's) and seems wedded to partners that still belong to the stereotype the game wants to move itself away from.

    The positive is it is much likelier to have been negotiated more competently than the RFL would have delivered; my understanding is that this was negotiated by the Super League commercial chief commercial officer under Robert Elstone's leadership. With cheap dig intended, the top level of the sport has a deal that amounts to little more than naff tarpaulin adverts across a few haulage trucks.

    Multi million investment over 5 years as opposed to 10 adverts on trucks for one year....it's only a little more?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Multi million investment over 5 years as opposed to 10 adverts on trucks for one year....it's only a little more?
    Sorry I phrased that incorrectly; I've updated my post to be clearer. As my post insinuates I think the deal negotiated by SL was much more favourable than the RFL would have achieved in its old guise. The 'little more' comment was meant to reflect the hideous decision to give naming rights in exchange for a few tarpaulin banners.

  6. #6
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Sorry I phrased that incorrectly; I've updated my post to be clearer. As my post insinuates I think the deal negotiated by SL was much more favourable than the RFL would have achieved in its old guise. The 'little more' comment was meant to reflect the hideous decision to give naming rights in exchange for a few tarpaulin banners.
    Argue that makes far more sense

    Yes it was embarrassing but I think it was the only offer available so took what they could

    For me this further demonstrates the product has moved on and increased in value

    Was it not SL who also negotiated the previous deals?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Argue that makes far more sense

    Yes it was embarrassing but I think it was the only offer available so took what they could
    Or conversely it reflected the failure of those running the sport to present the sport in a favourable light; to demonstrate tangible growth at all levels of the sport (that didn't involve incentivising the offering) and to present itself an attractive 'lifestyle choice' or 'trend' to brand partners. Fortunately Robert Elstone is working hard to rectify past failures:

    https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...rand-1-9738939


    For me this further demonstrates the product has moved on and increased in value

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Was it not SL who also negotiated the previous deals?
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby...eague-13716166

    No, it was the RFL. The creation of a separate CEO - outside the RFL - to manage the affairs/interests of the SL clubs was instituted last year with appointment of Robert Elstone. It is Super League chief commercial officer, Rhodri Jones who is part of Elstone's team that has led the delivery of this deal.

    Creation of a SL CEO was the will of most of the Super League Chairmen (Gary Hetherington the notable exception) as the clubs clearly had a crisis of confidence that the RFL could properly represent their interests and probably felt the game's governing body was no longer fit for purpose. This move was chiefly motivated by the belief that the clubs needed a new organisational structure to ensure their commercial/financial interests were better managed.

  8. #8
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Or conversely it reflected the failure of those running the sport to present the sport in a favourable light; to demonstrate tangible growth at all levels of the sport (that didn't involve incentivising the offering) and to present itself an attractive 'lifestyle choice' or 'trend' to brand partners. Fortunately Robert Elstone is working hard to rectify past failures:

    https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...rand-1-9738939


    For me this further demonstrates the product has moved on and increased in value


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby...eague-13716166

    No, it was the RFL. The creation of a separate CEO - outside the RFL - to manage the affairs/interests of the SL clubs was instituted last year with appointment of Robert Elstone.

    It was the will of most of the Super League Chairmen (Gary Hetherington the notable exception) as the clubs clearly had little confidence that the RFL could properly represent their interests. This move was chiefly motivated by the belief that the clubs needed a new organisational structure to ensure their commercial/financial interests were better managed.
    If I remember rightly the RFL conducted the negotiations with various parties and came up with two offers: the £0.00 Stobart deal and an offer from Betfred which wasn't massively lucrative but which did involve some actual money. The clubs then voted for Stobart on the grounds that they didn't want the game associated with gambling.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    If I remember rightly the RFL conducted the negotiations with various parties and came up with two offers: the £0.00 Stobart deal and an offer from Betfred which wasn't massively lucrative but which did involve some actual money. The clubs then voted for Stobart on the grounds that they didn't want the game associated with gambling.
    In fairness, the clubs were hardly presented a set of favourable options - both are reminiscent of that Batman scene - 'do you want death or exile?'

    The proposals by the RFL were a clear sign that the governing body was failing. The writing was on the wall form then on in my opinion. I think times have shifted since the original deal was presented as gambling companies appear to be more pervasive in sport whereas at the time they were less visible/involved.

  10. #10
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    In fairness, the clubs were hardly presented a set of favourable options - both are reminiscent of that Batman scene - 'do you want death or exile?'

    The proposals by the RFL were a clear sign that the governing body was failing. The writing was on the wall form then on in my opinion. I think times have shifted since the original deal was presented as gambling companies appear to be more pervasive in sport whereas at the time they were less visible/involved.
    Can't disagree with any of that. It was a grim episode for all concerned.

  11. #11
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk paulscnthorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St Helens
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,591
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Without going over old ground it was certainly a RFL deal, Nigel Wood said it could be worth "2.5 million" just not in actual money.. Engage were giving us over a million a season prior to that

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...igel-Wood.html

    The stobart deal put us back years, you can imagine the next negotiation: RFL "we want £1m" potential sponsor "you gave it away last year for nothing" you've completely devalued your product

  12. #12
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    Can't disagree with any of that. It was a grim episode for all concerned.
    Very much so, thankfully we have moved on

  13. #13
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,174
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    While I am happy that we are receiving an increased amount, does anyone know how much it actually is?

  14. #14
    Learning All The Songs Kakariki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,849
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    To be fair there are plenty of football teams sponsored by gambling companies. If the deal's worth a decent amount why not.

    It could be worse. It could be sponsored by a vaping company or a pawnbrokers!

    Sent from my ZTE BLADE V7 using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •