Punos wrote:IAll rugby union clubs have a salary cap of £4 million while getting less that 20k crowd each week, so they must have a lot of outside cash coming in to help them.
Every super league club lose money every year so to turn down a source of income on moralistic grounds is just plain crazy. We have a businessman running our club now so he could see that, like yours.
I think there's a lot more to it than that. The Stobart deal (not "Stobarts", sorry but it does my head in when people pluralise it!) is not a locked in exclusive deal like the Betfair one would have been, and that the engage one was. We've left ourselves open to a lot of other potential sponsors, so there will still be a large amount of sponsorship income yet to be announced.
On top of which, the Stobart deal gives us a lot of advertising at a far cheaper price than it would have cost had we paid directly to someone with cash. The wagons advertise Sky Sports, as well as some of our supplementary sponsors (e.g. Heinz), which gives us greater pulling power and will attract us more money from them. If Sky Sports viewing figures go up for SL, that's more money for the TV deal (our biggest source of income).
It's nothing to do with morals, so I don't see where the "moralistic grounds" comment comes from. It basically comes down to the confidence some chairmen have in the league being able to take advantage of such a deal and generate it into eventual extra cash from other income streams. 50% thought yes and 50% thought no (and 4 of them decided they didn't even want to vote!).
_zps67e534e4.jpg)
