If the increase was down to such a great deal they did with Stobart then why are they cancelling it? Seems they've finally realised they dropped a cobbler with this one. The RFL maybe also need the money themselves and with the Bradford situation and rumours of Salford needing cash that they now need a proper deal that actually gives them a revenue stream.



Thought when it was announced it was a stupid deal with only one winner and that been Stobart and still think its been a stupid deal.

Now, now... there's no need for that sort of behaviour around here!

Why would Stobart agree to end "by mutual consent" a deal that has cost them nothing financially??



We may have a new sponsor lined up and Stobart will get a sweetner to end early....just a thought

Monday nights had an effect on the viewing figures?

it's not ending early though, is it?

Good decision. A money based sponsorship deal is needed.

How has it cost them nothing financially?



Did those wraps on 100 trailers suddenly appear by magic?

They dont look they have had full wraps done only very large graphics, which in the grand scheme of things are probably not costing them an awful lot of money due to the amount they have done on the rest of the fleet. I think they may even have there own dept that does the graphics etc for the full fleet.



I know when we had all ours done it was a massive amount cheaper than a one off, nearly half the amount per vehicle.



So although there will no doubt be a cost it certainly won't be a fortune. I certainly believe Stobart have more than got there outlay back in regards to the amount of advertising profile they've got just by TV alone.

So the money can be pi[is[/ised away on more journeyman Aussie imports?



Even if the RFL find someone to match Engage's deal of £1.2m per year and it all goes to the 14 Superleague clubs, that's a whopping £85k each. Hardly the sum to make the difference between financial success and penury.



Any money raised from a new sponsorship deal should be distributed among Superleague clubs but only to be used in promoting an developing the youth game in their areas

Spot on.



When the Premierleague first got the Sky money, a couple of chairmen wanted to put the money into a pot to then distribute into grassroots football. Most of the other chairmen wanted the cash for their clubs instead.



All this extra cash, instead of being used sensibly, was used to compete with one another in the transfer market and on players wages, driving up the price of both and effectively leaving the clubs with less than before.



Luckily we have a salary cap though and while it's in force this type of scenario is unlikely to happen. I agree though, it'd be much more beneficial ploughing it into the youth system.

I love the way the RFL is still getting the blame for the Stobart deal.



The RFL employ IMG, a specialist sports marketing company to canvas for sponsorships, any deals are then put to the chairmen of Superleague clubs and they decide what to go for. The fact that a few have subsequentlyspoken out against the Stobart deal, simply suggests they don't like democracy if they don't get the decision they want. Tough.



IMG are probably working on around 20-25% of any deals, so it's in their best interests to maximise sponsorship revenues. The fact that the sport is not awash with money suggests that its value to odvertisers is somewhat less than many supporters feel it should be.

Surely they are still within their rights to voice their displeasure even if they lost the vote ? They have to abide by the decision of course but don't have to agree with it. Do people who complain about the Government on the Sin Bin dislike democracy as well ?





I agree the Chairmen got what they deserved as a group but a sport desperately needing cash couldn't afford to turn down real readies IMO - we can vex and moan about whether a few nice looking lorries made a difference - maybe they have - but the sport at club level is skint and indirect and potential benefits don't pay players and staff.