i think this is a great move and gives the RFL an opportunity to have a home stadium, a base. Hopefully in time this will be our Twickenham, our Wembley, especially if the RFL have plans to redevelop the ground and surrounding area.

The issue re getting a super league license in the future is a non starter for me. If we were talking about a Wakefield, for example, then I could see the argument as they only just scraped in to this round of franchises. This is Bradford Bulls we're talking about, they were never in danger of losing their license and probably wont be in that position for a long long time.

It's not about developing Odsal - rather saving the Bulls, I think.

My inference from reading the last post on the previous page is that the Bulls were in the mire and thus vulnerable to a predatory buy-out.
The RFL has chucked them a rope with a cash injection, but this is effectively a loan, as their peppercorn rent/maintenance costs will be greater.

Peppercorn rental agreements have another advantage, it seems. Short-term at least.

Good news that the Bulls have been save from predators, though as we didn't know they were in need it maybe doesn't feel like it. That it has had to come from the RFL is sub-optimal, but needs must.

What one has to wonder (again), is whether that are strategically important clubs for whom the RFL will go the extra mile?
And is that a problem or merely doing what is best rather than what is strictly right?

Isn't the idea of sponsorship to finance an organization ? If reports are true Stobarts are getting the best out of this deal, can you imagine the Premier League/RFU or any other sport being satisfied with 300 mobile billboards that advertise Stobarts Super League?

Well, no, the EPL or RFU won't be happy with trucks driving around advertising a rival sport, naturally.

It seems from conversations had last night at the season opening that some future potential of the site was indeed in the RFLs mind. Adeybull is worth reading on the VT thread at the moment.



We weren't in the mire, not in the sense that they were on the verge of going out of business. It's true that the costs of the site are a burden, and that this has had a huge impact on the club since their return, far more than the Harris case did. It's the site itself that made us attractive to hostile takeover by people interested in the site. The terms of the lease say it's ours for as long as we a) want it and b) can pay. Both of those are true, with the latter becoming more true as the current regime have streamlined operating costs.

What is true is that the club could not fend off a hostile take over. All clubs without a sugar daddy are in the mire from that point of view, and probably some who do have one too. The only thoughts I have to clear and present danger though were that any approaches for the club would be by asset strippers who make the "for as long as we want it" bit null and void, at which point the site would be sold to any developers and it would realise it's market value as a "fit for any use" site rather than a "fit for any rugby league club that wants play in Bradford" use. The council would profit hugely (no bad thing in itself), as would any developer who had found a way to get the current tenants out.

By this act the club isn't going to be a pawn in a fight which they aren't even the object of. It's not a Bulls-centric issue, it's a land-centric one. It's certainly not a case of being by their own mismanagement on the verge of collapse or administration. Now the lease is owned by someone who isn't going to tear it up, and thus the Bulls remain as they were but no longer likely to become collateral damage.

The idea of any commercial deal is to extract value from it, ideally as much as possible. I think the Stobart deal is superb. I'm disappointed it's only 100 trucks to begin with (out of over 2000) but I still think it's a very positive step. And it's a damn sight better than striking up a deal with a company that wants your customers to mickey their earnings into a fire at the end of every week.

Why will it concern those two organisations that trucks are driving around the country advertising Rugby League? Would you be happy if your club entered into a similar deal ie. no cash but the club's name emblazoned on several hundred trucks?

You asked, basically, if the EPL and the RFU would be satisfied with truck's driving around with "Stobarts superleague" on them, I merely responded that they wouldn't, particularly if they'd paid Stobarts to drive around with "Stobarts superleague" on their trucks.

I have no concern nor interest in the matter, really. Just picking up on your error made me feel better, although; you completely missed it.

So 5% of Stobart's fleet will be advertising the Super League sponsorship. I think that's rubbish tbh. The potential pulling power is massive, but frankly 5% of their fleet is pathetic, from our arm of the deal. IMO this offers more to Stobart's than advertising RL in this country. Stobart have a massive 'geek' following, and I can imagine this is more of a clever marketing ploy rather than any real benefit to RL in the country. I've no idea how much a new tarpaulin sheet costs for a trailer but I doubt it's anything like what Betfair was offering x 100 trucks. Another point is where will these trailers be based? As in, will they be local shunters? Domestic carriers or European transit wagons? Say for an example having the majority based in and around Yorkshire/Lancs wouldn't really expand the brand of the Super League.


** Also, having strong commercial links to two SL clubs now, the RFL haven't done themselves any favours to the ave RL fan recently (IMO), esp when you consider they control who competes in the top competition and who doesn't.

I think it's fair to say it's an experiment at this point. In principle it's a great idea, but how it actually pans out remains to be seen. It could be trucks carrying things from Rochdale to Oldham, they could be national, and they could be all over Europe. They might even stay in Europe yet, which would be next to useless for everyone. I did find this interesting though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 729988.stm Quote:"The title sponsorship in previous years was all-encompassing, in effect a lock-out of other brands. "This is the exact opposite. This has freed up inventory that is available which has a commercial value for other blue-chip brands to come in and support Super League. "You will see over the course of the next couple of months partnership packages supporting the Stobart sponsorship so that you will find that the sport as a whole is financially in the same position." ..which, if it pans out, means lots of advertising in exchange for naming rights plus equivalent revenue streams through other sources. That would be nice.

I think it's fair to say it's an experiment at this point. In principle it's a great idea, but how it actually pans out remains to be seen. It could be trucks carrying things from Rochdale to Oldham, they could be national, and they could be all over Europe. They might even stay in Europe yet, which would be next to useless for everyone. I did find this interesting though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 729988.stm Quote:"The title sponsorship in previous years was all-encompassing, in effect a lock-out of other brands. "This is the exact opposite. This has freed up inventory that is available which has a commercial value for other blue-chip brands to come in and support Super League. "You will see over the course of the next couple of months partnership packages supporting the Stobart sponsorship so that you will find that the sport as a whole is financially in the same position." ..which, if it pans out, means lots of advertising in exchange for naming rights plus equivalent revenue streams through other sources. That would be nice.