This is quite embarrassing for our 6N committee.

Well done John Feehan and co. What moguls you are.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/climbdown-for-six-nations-organisers-after-sponsor-blow-fxr88drg8


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-embarrassment-bid-bumper-13750071


For those of you who do not like to use links:-

Six Nations embarrassment as bid for bumper new sponsorship deal ends with a reported loss of millions

Northern hemisphere rugby's showpiece tournament has been unable to secure the backing bosses believed was possible

Six Nations Championship organisers have reportedly been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over sponsorship of the 2018 tournament.

RBS ended its 14-year backing of the Six Nations and competition chief John Feehan launched a global search for a successor ready to plough £100m into a six-year sponsorship deal.


The Times report organisers rejected a £15m-a-year offer from RBS to continue their backing in the hope of striking a more lucrative deal elsewhere.

But a year's search for new backers has proved fruitless.

It means Six Nations organisers have had little choice but to go back to RBS to try and secure the initial £15m-a-year deal.

But the Times claims RBS said no, offering an initial £9m a year - though the figure could now exceed £11m after protracted talks.

A source told the Times: "The bank said no, and you can understand why.

"After considerable negotiations over the past few months the figure has increased slightly to around £11m and they may get a bit more.

"But it is hugely embarrassing that the Six Nations seem to have overplayed their hand and have had to go back, almost cap in hand, to RBS."

The newspaper report Six Nations organisers did receive a £100m offer from HSBC but their bid was turned down as it combined rights to the tournament and the British and Irish Lions.

The uncertainty surrounding Brexit is thought to be one of the reasons why the Six Nations were unable to seal their £100m deal, with sport seeing a downturn in the sponsorship market.

how much did RBS pay per year, previously?

Last deal was £11m a year. Their original offer was £15m a year, but new deal now same as old one.

So RBS ended the sponsorship deal but offered a new £15m deal?

marty2086 wrote:So RBS ended the sponsorship deal but offered a new £15m deal?

Not really.

RBS offered £15m to extend it, but the 6Ns committee felt they could get more and were talking to other people. Thus back in January (I think) it was announced that the sponsorship would end and a new sponsor announced in 6 months time. Having failed to get a new sponsor, the 6Ns committee have had to go cap in hand to RBS.


(Not too dissimilar to negotiations between PRL and Aviva)

Almost as bad as European Cup cutting the Heineken sponsorship by 2/3rd - with no new sponsors

At least it is 100% of the previous deal not 33% of the previous deal as in the SDC

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So RBS ended the sponsorship deal but offered a new £15m deal?

Not really.

RBS offered £15m to extend it, but the 6Ns committee felt they could get more and were talking to other people. Thus back in January (I think) it was announced that the sponsorship would end and a new sponsor announced in 6 months time. Having failed to get a new sponsor, the 6Ns committee have had to go cap in hand to RBS.


(Not too dissimilar to negotiations between PRL and Aviva)

Nope RBS announced last year it was ending the sponsorship

It's even reported in the initial OP

RBS ended its 14-year backing of the Six Nations

It would appear that I am indeed wrong.

My only excuse is that the article in the Times, which I had read rather than any other sources, does clearly state that RBS had put a £15m offer on the table that was turned down by the 6Ns. It does not say when that offer was made however (but would have to have been before Jan 17, and you would assume before RBS announced they were ending sponsorship a year ago)

That's what baffling me about the claim, if Im not mistaken RBS were cutting back on sponsorship because they were losing so much money then they offer more money

Things are projected to improve for them from next year so could explain it but just makes me sceptical of the initial claims

If they thought they could get more than £15m then it doesn't mean they were wrong for trying. It might just be down to certain factors like Brexit etc. They're still getting a slight increase on previous years.

RBS were, still are ?, a total shambles of an organization.

It does not surprise me the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing..............................

profitius wrote:If they thought they could get more than £15m then it doesn't mean they were wrong for trying. It might just be down to certain factors like Brexit etc. They're still getting a slight increase on previous years.

I am not it is about Brexit. Sponsorship like TV and display advertising budgets are under pressure because they have to compete for spend against Google. Sponsor the 6N and you get some nebulous goodwill and in theory some increase in name recognition and hence sales. Advertise via Google and you pay for clicks through to your website on which you can measure the translation into sales.

The Google six nations.

What do you think ?

Well I have never thought RBS should do it anyway since Scotland never win it.

Gwlad wrote:Well I have never thought RBS should do it anyway since Scotland never win it.

It's the only way to get Scotlands name on the trophy these days

FFS boys, don't start them.

They have only just started cooling down from their B&I Lions complaining.

Right now I'm off before the storm starts.

Culloden was a disappointment as well.

Culloden was a disappointment as well

Culloden was a score draw - Scots fought on both sides.

As well as 4 regiments of Scots fighting on the Government side there was also an English regiment fighting on the Jacobites side. This was no a battle you could define by nationalities or religion, it was purely a dynastic struggle.

I think Miramax Films might be keen to sponsor a wholesome brand like the 6 nations.

Pete330v2 wrote:I think Miramax Films might be keen to sponsor a wholesome brand like the 6 nations.

Pete330v2 wrote:I think Miramax Films might be keen to sponsor a wholesome brand like the 6 nations.

It's owned by beIN Media now, which broadcasts the Six Nations.

TrailApe wrote:

Culloden was a disappointment as well

Culloden was a score draw - Scots fought on both sides.

As well as 4 regiments of Scots fighting on the Government side there was also an English regiment fighting on the Jacobites side. This was no a battle you could define by nationalities or religion, it was purely a dynastic struggle.

Congrats on writing in a wee Scots accent

Anyway I love Scots...Archie Gemmill

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:I think Miramax Films might be keen to sponsor a wholesome brand like the 6 nations.

It's owned by beIN Media now, which broadcasts the Six Nations.

You must be some craic to be around!!!!

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:I think Miramax Films might be keen to sponsor a wholesome brand like the 6 nations.

It's owned by beIN Media now, which broadcasts the Six Nations.

Kinda proving Petes point about the 6N, as they are the same owners of PSG and Al Jazeera

TrailApe wrote:

Culloden was a disappointment as well

Culloden was a score draw - Scots fought on both sides.

As well as 4 regiments of Scots fighting on the Government side there was also an English regiment fighting on the Jacobites side. This was no a battle you could define by nationalities or religion, it was purely a dynastic struggle.

Very true. As an Ayshire born whig pro-industrialist I would have been fighting on the English side.

Which perhaps makes me less patriotic by bloodline but presumably gave my ancestors access to several dozen serving wenches in English country taverns who didn't have horse poo all over them.

Too much. Bygones.

Stereotypical remarks about English wenches is the whole problem with the Scots. The average Borders bird uses deep fried Mars Bar for a lip gloss.

Very true. As an Ayshire born whig pro-industrialist I would have been fighting on the English side.

And, given that the North of England was in the main, pro-Jacobite, it could possibly have led to me fighting on the side of the French Dwarf - or if not swayed by the masses - whichever side had the best deep fried confectionary...

Sorry can't post the link.

“Altrad Group is in talks,” Altrad told The Mail on Sunday.

“The tender process is still out for the 2018 competition so we have maybe two months to come to an agreement if it is going to happen.

“They are asking for a lot of money but the money is not a problem for us.

“If we are going to sponsor the Six Nations, we want it to be an arrangement over several years.”

Interesting.

https://www.sportbusiness.com/sport-news/altrad-group-talks-replace-rbs-six-nations-sponsor

Natwest (so RBS) are going to sponsor the 6 nations in 2018. Only extended the current sponsorship to next year.

Maybe the 6 nations committee should have more Irishmen doing the negotiations as they seem to be experts

Why do all of you consistently worry about sponsorship or this, that and the other?  I couldn't give a damn how little or how much the committee is making.... it don't put money in my pocket to be worrying about suits and ties having their cut or losing a million here or there; ....and let's face it.... the 6N ain't ending any time soon.

So relax everybody.  Stop being so greedy.  Get off the treadmill and out of the rat race.  Maybe there'll be less fireworks before the games...so there is always a bright side to every cloud.

EWT Spoons wrote:Natwest (so RBS) are going to sponsor the 6 nations in 2018.  Only extended the current sponsorship to next year.

That's good - I was worried at one point we might see the Tampax 6 Nations.

Not that watching Scotland in recent years hasn't been thoroughly absorbent in its own way.

TrailApe wrote:

Culloden was a disappointment as well

Culloden was a score draw - Scots fought on both sides.

As well as 4 regiments of Scots fighting on the Government side there was also an English regiment fighting on the Jacobites side. This was no a battle you could define by nationalities or religion, it was purely a dynastic struggle.

Not strictly true, it was more of a sectarian struggle. The Jacobite backed Stuart Dynasty was Catholic and the Hanoverian loyalists were protestants.

But still the original post from Gwlad is another example of why I'm rarely on here these days.

Gwlad wrote:Stereotypical remarks about English wenches is the whole problem with the Scots. The average Borders bird uses deep fried Mars Bar for a lip gloss.

SHhhhhh... battered lips sink tips