Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:59 pm  

jaybs wrote:

I think the package Stobart have brought to the table is more an associate sponsor
We have got to improve on media coverage other than Sky is sponsors are ever going to take us serious.

This is very true, we are too much inbedded with SKY that no major Global Company would sponsor "big" knowing that that they will be sponsoring SKY as well.
Not sure if the Stobart Package is going to be all that good in attracting people to the game. I travel a lot up and down the motorways, Stobarts busy periods are early mornings and late evenings outside of the public commuter time window. If you see a Stobart "Superleague" lorry I should imagine it would have some novelty value, the package looks very poor when you consider the power of proper media advertising.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:13 pm  

the thought has occured to me with the lorries showing all the players.Its, if a player is transfered do they change the shirt or take him off altogether or just leave him on there.It would be mega bucks to change the shirt.The other thing would be for the single player trucks is to get the clubs benefit & long contact players as they would of course be on the longest,like Wello & Robes for the Saints.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:22 am  

Judder Man wrote:

This is very true, we are too much inbedded with SKY that no major Global Company would sponsor "big" knowing that that they will be sponsoring SKY as well.
Not sure if the Stobart Package is going to be all that good in attracting people to the game. I travel a lot up and down the motorways, Stobarts busy periods are early mornings and late evenings outside of the public commuter time window. If you see a Stobart "Superleague" lorry I should imagine it would have some novelty value, the package looks very poor when you consider the power of proper media advertising.

Thursday I traveled to Birmingham on the M6 leaving just before 8am and both outward and return never was able to see one Stobarts truck at all out of the 2,000 so to catch one of the 100 you should be able to claim a badge!

I still say SuperLeague will mean nothing to the average driver, I have seen photo's of the side and front but not the back of the truck which I am told does have the club's website on their SIX trucks!

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:24 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I would imagine Sky and Heinz paid for their advertising on the truck sides and so I should imagine that money will have gone towards the cost of the rugby livery. Stobart didn't get to where they are today by being mugs!

1) I would appreciate it if you 'imagine' stuff in future you would say that up front, saves a lot of time debating things when you know someone is just making stuff up, and..
2) I never suggested Stobart are mugs,I suggested the RFL are. The RFL think they are getting superleague sponsorship when actually the sponsorship is for the Sky coverage of SL. Two different things.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:28 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Are you saying that the presence of a sky logo means the trucks aren't promoting SL?

For 1) it's more than the presence of a logo. The logo is very prominent and the call to action is to watch it on Sky on a Friday evening.

and 2) It's a sad day when RL fans are quite happy to believe Sky and RL are as good as the same thing.

believe me, when the Sky people who did this show the pics to their bosses they will be getting some nice bonuses. I know how this stuff works.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:50 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

1) I would appreciate it if you 'imagine' stuff in future you would say that up front, saves a lot of time debating things when you know someone is just making stuff up,

I wasn't making anything up. I was using supposition. It's a technique commonly used in discussion. Look it up in the dictionary if you're not sure what the word means.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 pm  

If we don't try the Stobart deal out we won't know what impact it has. We know how little difference it makes the promotion of the overall game having somebody like Engage or BetFair i.e. little. All traditional sponsorship has given us is money which isn't a bad thing but the RFL want something a bit different so why not try it. Nothing to lose really.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:54 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

2) I never suggested Stobart are mugs,I suggested the RFL are. The RFL think they are getting superleague sponsorship when actually the sponsorship is for the Sky coverage of SL. Two different things.

Very true....

I've been involved in a bit of sponsorship myself as a sponsor over the years and I've always had to cough up some cash so this is a new concept.
The web definition for sponsorship is:
"Sponsorship is a business relationship between a provider of funds, resources or services and an individual, event or organisation which offers in return rights and association that may be used for commercial advantage in return for the sponsorship investment"
so I suppose it doesn't have to involve cash but this looks more to benifit sky than RFL/SL.

Perhaps RL doesn't need the money?
Perhaps the Engage money wasn't very much?

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:39 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

so I suppose it doesn't have to involve cash but this looks more to benifit sky than RFL/SL.

More people taking up SKY subscriptions because of this = Stronger bargaining position for RL when discussing new TV contracts (which is due up soon coincidentally).

Win-Win!

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:17 pm  

McClennan wrote: More people taking up SKY subscriptions because of this = Stronger bargaining position for RL when discussing new TV contracts (which is due up soon coincidentally). Win-Win! Deal with Sky was done in August last year according to sky: http://business.sky.com/Media/PR/SkySportsHasBeenAwardedExclusiveLiveRightsToSuperLeagueUntilTheEndOf2016 no mention of money but the Gaurdian says its £90M over 5 years (£18M p.a. / £1.28M per club p.a.) vs the last 3 year deal of £50.M so its roughly the same given inflation and slightly down per club given the increase in the no of clubs since the start of the last deal where they got £1.38M per club). It seems that some clubs are less than happy about the Sky deal and are definately unhappy about the cashless sponsonship from Stobarts given 5 out of 14 voted against it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/16729988.stm I personally think the deal is very poor and once again the RFL has been given the run around by a more streetwise partner. The cost to Stobart is about £100K for the new curtains and perhaps £50K for the paint transfers which knowing their buying power they will probably force force the trailer manufacturers and/or leasing companies to "absorb" the cost as it is a substitute livery as well as passing the hat round to Sky. The comments from CEO Mr Andrew Tinkler were interesting : "There is always costs involved in dealing with something like this. There might be cash involved further down the line." Hopefully this hints as increased involvement with RFL/SL which in spite of my ctritism of the deal may end up being very good for the sport. If only Mr Tinkler can be forced to prise open his wallet! Perhaps given their location they want a cumbrian team franchise?

McClennan wrote: More people taking up SKY subscriptions because of this = Stronger bargaining position for RL when discussing new TV contracts (which is due up soon coincidentally). Win-Win! Deal with Sky was done in August last year according to sky: http://business.sky.com/Media/PR/SkySportsHasBeenAwardedExclusiveLiveRightsToSuperLeagueUntilTheEndOf2016 no mention of money but the Gaurdian says its £90M over 5 years (£18M p.a. / £1.28M per club p.a.) vs the last 3 year deal of £50.M so its roughly the same given inflation and slightly down per club given the increase in the no of clubs since the start of the last deal where they got £1.38M per club). It seems that some clubs are less than happy about the Sky deal and are definately unhappy about the cashless sponsonship from Stobarts given 5 out of 14 voted against it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/16729988.stm I personally think the deal is very poor and once again the RFL has been given the run around by a more streetwise partner. The cost to Stobart is about £100K for the new curtains and perhaps £50K for the paint transfers which knowing their buying power they will probably force force the trailer manufacturers and/or leasing companies to "absorb" the cost as it is a substitute livery as well as passing the hat round to Sky. The comments from CEO Mr Andrew Tinkler were interesting : "There is always costs involved in dealing with something like this. There might be cash involved further down the line." Hopefully this hints as increased involvement with RFL/SL which in spite of my ctritism of the deal may end up being very good for the sport. If only Mr Tinkler can be forced to prise open his wallet! Perhaps given their location they want a cumbrian team franchise?