WWW.RLFANS.COM :: View topic - Parasol maintain Sponsorship of Hull KR

Big Spender wrote:I'm sure i read somehere on a forum earlier this month that Parasol had gone bust and ditched Rovers......but then again i read.

1) Rovers were not going to get the East stand extended.

2) Rovers were signing Graham Horne / Tommy Lee / Paul King.

3) Rovers could not afford any marquee signings from Oz.

4) Rovers were the only team in the city to prune staff ( or coaches ).

etc, etc

Some prety bad trolling by the usual suspects but the main concern is that a lot of the "not so bright" actually believe these muppets :lol:

Neil HFC wrote:I read somewhere that having a single sponser on a shirt was the way to go as it promoted a clean, classic look. etc ect etc

bob bob bobin robin wrote:Still prefer a shirt with only one sponsor though, rather than a patch-work quilt (or with funeral colours on!).

Author:	suttonrobin [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Good news. Plenty of sponsors in the current climate.

Author:	Captain Dave [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Further good news.

Author:	Big Spender [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm sure i read somehere on a forum earlier this month that Parasol had gone bust and ditched Rovers......but then again i read. 1) Rovers were not going to get the East stand extended. 2) Rovers were signing Graham Horne / Tommy Lee / Paul King. 3) Rovers could not afford any marquee signings from Oz. 4) Rovers were the only team in the city to prune staff ( or coaches ). etc, etc Some prety bad trolling by the usual suspects but the main concern is that a lot of the "not so bright" actually believe these muppets

Author:	Neil HFC [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:
Big Spender wrote:I'm sure i read somehere on a forum earlier this month that Parasol had gone bust and ditched Rovers......but then again i read. 1) Rovers were not going to get the East stand extended. 2) Rovers were signing Graham Horne / Tommy Lee / Paul King. 3) Rovers could not afford any marquee signings from Oz. 4) Rovers were the only team in the city to prune staff ( or coaches ). etc, etc Some prety bad trolling by the usual suspects but the main concern is that a lot of the "not so bright" actually believe these muppets I read somewhere that having a single sponser on a shirt was the way to go as it promoted a clean, classic look. etc ect etc

Author:	hkrovers [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Neil HFC wrote:I read somewhere that having a single sponser on a shirt was the way to go as it promoted a clean, classic look. etc ect etc Like thats soooo last year

WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/

Parasol maintain Sponsorship of Hull KR https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=438276	Page 1 of 4

Author:	Bobbin' Along [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:
The clean classic look was last year. It's so passe.

Author:	Hutchie [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Neil HFC wrote:I read somewhere that having a single sponser on a shirt was the way to go as it promoted a clean, classic look. etc ect etc that was in the same press release as the Burj el a Salt End wasnt it Parasol must have had some spare dosh left after there other big sponsorhip deal i guess

Author:	bob bob bobin robin [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Still prefer a shirt with only one sponsor though, rather than a patch-work quilt (or with funeral colours on!).

Author:	R.B.A [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:
bob bob bobin robin wrote:Still prefer a shirt with only one sponsor though, rather than a patch-work quilt (or with funeral colours on!). I prefer a shirt that maximises revenue for the club.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/