Club Finances

[nathan_rugby]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

• Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?
  
  What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker
  
  I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

[fozzieskem]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

• Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?
  
  What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker
  
  I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

No doubt others will disagree but I can’t see any benefit certainly of the Australian folly,even Lenegan himself said it didn’t make anywhere near the expected money,though not a loss,it was as I said back then a pointless exercise at a time when attendances are down at the DW,you don’t slap your core support in the face.

London was an odd one,it didn’t get the crowds talked about but as a day out it was great fun,it was great to go to the broncos the other week too,but benefit to the club I can’t see any,but maybe behind the scenes glad handing goes on,it certainly won’t be as daft as the Australian trip which benefited very few.

[nathan_rugby]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

• Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?
  
  What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker
  
  I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

No doubt others will disagree but I can’t see any benefit certainly of the Australian folly,even Lenegan himself said it didn’t make anywhere near the expected money,though not a loss,it was as I said back then a pointless exercise at a time when attendances are down at the DW,you don’t slap your core support in the face.

London was an odd one,it didn’t get the crowds talked about but as a day out it was great fun,it was great to go to the broncos the other week too,but benefit to the club I can’t see any,but maybe behind the scenes glad handing goes on,it certainly won’t be as daft as the Australian trip which benefited very few.

Whilst you cannot fault the ambition, Rugby League is struggling in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Attention should be focused else where before opportunities like the above are prioritized.

[DaveO]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?

What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker

I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

I haven’t seen anyone saying we refuse to have a big money sponsor. I have posted IL has failed to secure one.

It’s been my view from more or less day one of IL owning the club that while he is rich he’s not got the seemingly bottomless pit of cash some who is super rich has. So he’s probably as put in as much as he can afford.

The trouble with that is we appear to have a shortfall as we are making losses. So if he can’t afford to bankroll the club he needs to find sponsorship of sufficient level to make up the required amount which he hasn’t or else we would not be posting losses.

The Aussie and London trips were bizarre. Neither as far as we know has led to anything long term nor prevented those losses from occurring.

[fozzieskem]

I’d go as far as to say those two trips alienated an already shrinking fan base to be honest

[Caboosegg]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?

What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker

I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

I haven’t seen anyone saying we refuse to have a big money sponsor. I have posted IL has failed to secure one.

It’s been my view from more or less day one of IL owning the club that while he is rich he’s not got the seemingly bottomless pit of cash some who is super rich has. So he’s probably as put in as much as he can afford.

The trouble with that is we appear to have a shortfall as we are making losses. So if he can’t afford to bankroll the club he needs to find sponsorship of sufficient level to make up the required amount which he hasn’t or else we would not be posting losses.

The Aussie and London trips were bizarre. Neither as far as we know has led to anything long term nor prevented those losses from occurring.

Out of curiosity apart from the league itself which club doed have a big name sponser?

[fozzieskem]

It is well documented that IL is using his own money to fund the club and this could be the reason why he has not bought the high profile players other clubs have done.

Has the London venture brought any clear benefit?

What came of the trip to Australia? It was documented as a money maker

I have seen posters on here mentioning us refusing to have a big money sponsor. What is the story with this?

I haven’t seen anyone saying we refuse to have a big money sponsor. I have posted IL has failed to secure one.

It’s been my view from more or less day one of IL owning the club that while he is rich he’s not got the seemingly bottomless pit of cash some who is super rich has. So he’s probably as put in as much as he can afford.

The trouble with that is we appear to have a shortfall as we are making losses. So if he can’t afford to bankroll the club he needs to find sponsorship of sufficient level to make up the required amount which he hasn’t or else we would not be posting losses.

The Aussie and London trips were bizarre. Neither as far as we know has led to anything long term nor prevented those losses from occurring.

Out of curiosity apart from the league itself which club doed have a big name sponser?

Didn’t Warrington have Emirates as title sponsors a couple of years back

[medlocke]

I haven’t seen anyone saying we refuse to have a big money sponsor. I have posted IL has failed to secure one.

It’s been my view from more or less day one of IL owning the club that while he is rich he’s not got the seemingly bottomless pit of cash some who is super rich has. So he’s probably as put in as much as he can afford.

The trouble with that is we appear to have a shortfall as we are making losses. So if he can’t afford to bankroll the club he needs to find sponsorship of sufficient level to make up the required amount which he hasn’t or else we would not be posting losses.

The Aussie and London trips were bizarre. Neither as far as we know has led to anything long term nor prevented those losses from occurring.

Out of curiosity apart from the league itself which club doed have a big name sponser?

Didn’t Warrington have Emirates as title sponsors a couple of years back

Hull FC P&O Ferries
Saints Typhoo
London Virgin
Salford Mitsubishi Motors

[No straw damn us]

So how many "big name" sponsors do you see here?

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/54 ... eague-kits

[Caboosegg]

So how many "big name" sponsors do you see here?

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/54 ... eague-kits

Sadly i say Stains have the biggest one on their away shirts.