Replies

  • not a clue

  • It's pretty poor that we are the only NRL team without a sponsor. Surely there must be a company out there willing to invest in the eels with the new stadium, new board etc. The fact that we now have business savvy independent directors would surely mean they have contacts out there. 

    • Its pretty sad to think that not one decent brand has been reeled in . Mustve cost us close to $500,000 so far this year . 

    • It's well known we've had plenty of companies offer, but the club (Bernie) is being strategic in who they allow to be tied to our brand after dramas with both pirtek and dyldam
  • I heard Coke is looking for an NRL team but surely they'd go for the Storm or the Gold Coke Titans.
    • I'm sure The Roosters or The Sharks would throw their note in the ring . The Sharks boss would have the connections I'd say .
  • This is buzzare. Even Mona Vale Raiders under 6s are covered in sponsers. So cute.
    • * Bizzare I swear I changed bizzare twice but came up buzzare.
  • The thing is we can actually afford to fund the NRL side without a major sponsor hence why there is no rush. I actually like the PARRA on the front of the jersey. Winning brings sponsors. That and at least a good period without player controversy. I reckon if we can play solidly and win plenty of games throughout this year and have no more off field controversy we will have a high quality sponsor ready to partner with us. It will take time.
    • Mutts if there is money on offer then wouldn't you agree that turning away money after the money we lost last year is negligible. It's a big gamble to knock back a seasons worth of sponsorship in anticipation that we are keeping the decks clear for a better sponsor . Why wouldn't we have just found a stop gap for the year like every other club does ? What happens if we do encounter more player issues and then next year struggle to land a sponsor ?

      No club can " afford " to throw away a million bucks a year ( or half a million for that matter ).
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

The Captain replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"Yeah people are confusing "won't hold up in court" with "illegal".
Non compete has a high legal threshold so it's really hard to enforce. So these rules may be impotent. But they're definitely not illegal.
At best these rules act as a deterrent. At…"
1 minute ago
Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"He'll make that in 3yrs in Japan and R360 rugby"
1 minute ago
Muttman replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"The NRL can set its own rules. However it can't stop players signing with R360. That would be a restraint of trade. But the NRL is within its legal rights to determine who it registers and who it does not. So by all means sign with R360, but the NRL…"
4 minutes ago
LB replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"Yeah true. Lee Hangipitalis was on SEN saying they can't do it, then brought up why just R360 not Union or AFL even? 
Thats why I was doubtful, but they've done it and I'm all for it. More likely players will try to sue the NRL to let them in but as…"
20 minutes ago
More…