A) the bad smell of clubs going bust puts companies off
B) the stereotype of RL only being watched by unemployed miners is alive and well
C)SL is not covered on free to air tv limiting its exposure to a larger audience
D) The RFL have no clue about how to sell the strengths of the game
E) All of the above

D.

D.

I'd say the RFL failing to show or convey it's a worthwhile investment must be key. The decision will only be made on a financial standpoint in reality.

D.

Nathan Clarke: RFL Social Media & PR:

"SL,like I said, does have sponsors just no title one. Does it need one? 1 sponsor pay £10 or 10 pay £1 -what's diff? "

A which is leading to D

Massive difference...and if you can't see it Mr Clarke then a career elsewhere beckons



EDIT: In fact......the comment "Does it need one"? is enough to have your employment terminated on the spot Mr Clarke.
Of course it bloody needs a naming/main rights sponsor.........the 1.7 million a year paid by Engage was between 10% and 7% of the RFL's friggin turn over at the time. How can an employee of the RFL state publicly that he questions the need for a naming sponsor???

If his attitude is a pointer to that of the rest ofthe staff at the RFL then the game is ed!

E.

All of em !!

That's pretty damn stupid!

A big [size=150D[/size from me.