Given that RBS is 83% owned by the public ie. you and me and claims to support "local rugby clubs in building for their future" through its RugbyForce initiative, is it right that this only extends to rugby union clubs and does not include local rugby league clubs?

How much did they spend of our money sponsoring that garbage anyway?

Oh Goody....it's another "let's slag off the bigger, more popular and more wealthy code" thread..



[urlhttp://www.sportspromedia.com/news/rbs_confirms_renewal_of_six_nations_title_sponsorship/[/url



£11,000,000 a year



....let's all boo and hiss whilst trying to forget the dismal state of TGG in the UK

It wasn't meant as a slag anybody thread. You provided the figures yourself - is it right that a publicly owned company provides support to the tune of £11m a year to one branch of "rugby"but not to another whilst claiming to be supporting grass roots "rugby"?

RBS get exposure in some 160 countries where the 6 Nations is shown, as well as on their website which is ranked by alexa as below.
[urlhttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/6nations.net#[/url

Here's the report for the Superleague website...
[urlhttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/superleague.com#[/url

As for RBS and being a publicly funded organisation, they still have a need to use marketing and promotion to drive revenue.....the BBC claim 4.5 million as the average viewers per game in the UK alone, so 67.5 million people will watch the tournament each year........I'd call that pretty savy use of marketing budget. As for the distinction of Union from League, you're fighting a losing battle......Rugby will always be associated with the 15 man code.....there is very little you can do about that......


......let's put the 2 codes into perspective in the public eye shall we?
This year, RLWC 2013 will see the top 14 teams in RL battle it out for the pinnacle prize in the international game....at the same time, the Union sides from the SH will visit Europe for some end of year jollies......which of the 2 games will see the largest attendance?
England played Fiji, Australia, South Africa and the All Blacks last year and were watched by 325,928 paying fans.........stop anyone on the streets of say Birmingham and ask them to name an England "Rugby" player....how many will come out with a League players name?

Yes, it's probably not right that they get to claim the word "rugby" as their own, but back in the real world, nobody really cares anyway.....if asked, I am a LEAGUE fan......in the SH it is known as LEAGUE........

Seeing at its 83% owned by the taxpayer its unfair that they should sponsor a sport already awash with money.

As a company that is owned by the public and needs to generate revenues for its owners, RBS has a duty to do everything in it's power to ensure that it attracts business. Like it or not, the 6 Nations is seen by close to 70,000,000 UK TV viewers each year alone.....it is attended by another million spectators and is also broadcast to 160 countries around the world......fairness has nothing to do with it....it is 100% about knowing your target audience and being able to reach them..

[urlhttp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/rbs-extends-six-nations-sponsorship-deal-29016617.html[/url


As for Union being awash with money.......it's not the IRB's fault that they have an audience that is of interest to institutions such as RBS, HSBC, Landrover, IBM, etc...etc....that's just a fact of life.

A majority of its owners are the UK taxpayer. It was sponsoring the 6 nations before it needed the government handout. So that to me suggests it wasn't attracting the business before otherwise why did they need they hand out?

You need to know exactly where all the losses came from that required the bail out.....their every day banking as well as a major part of their corporate business was and still is pretty profitable......a very small part of the bank lost all that cash. The sponsorship is purely done to target middle englanders...daily mail readers etc.....as well as the CEO's of businesses who may want to move their business accounts to acompany associated with such a popular competition.

HSBC sponsor the Lions.......do you think that's done because:
a) the CEO is a member of "old ruggerbuggeronians"?
b) their marketing department canb quantify a tangible return on this investment?

RBS get a ROI on the 6 Nations deal...otherwise they wouldn't do it.

If sponsoring the 6 nations is a such a success for the RBS why did they did a Taxpayer handout?

You're either just fishing now or tired.


Retail and Business Banking at RBS are the areas of the business that had little influence on the massive losses which required the bail out.......they are also the areas of the Business that patently benefit from the association with the 6 Nations.
Your moral standpoint regarding what they can and can't sponsor carries no weight here....if they were named as SL sponsor tomorrow morning you'd be switching accounts by lunchtime

If the 6 nations sponsorship didn't attract enough money before, for the bank to be a a success why would it this time?