Elston - stop searching for the silver bullet.

[JohnM]

Largely agree. My point though, is that he'll start to get criticism not because of what he has or hasn't done, but just like the others i mentioned, just  because.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

The time to start judging Elston is probably this time next year when he has had the winter to put his plans into place and the a season to see how they have panned out.

[Luckycreed]

50 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

The time to start judging Elston is probably this time next year when he has had the winter to put his plans into place and the a season to see how they have panned out.

The time to judge him, and the new boss of the RFL will be when ink hits paper on the next broadcasting agreement with numbers rather than words being the metrics used to make the judgement.

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, Luckycreed said:

The time to judge him, and the new boss of the RFL will be when ink hits paper on the next broadcasting agreement with numbers rather than words being the metrics used to make the judgement.

There will be numbers to judge on next year too, commercial income, matchday income and gates.

[DoubleD]

15 hours ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

I would say disillusioned, rather than bitter.

Dont see anyone in the sport who is in it for the right reasons at this moment in time or has the right intentions.

 

 

 

 

I don't know how you can cast that aspersion at Elstone. He could've stayed in football earning a lot more money but wanted to make a difference in the sport he loves

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I don't know how you can cast that aspersion at Elstone. He could've stayed in football earning a lot more money but wanted to make a difference in the sport he loves

I personally find the need for people to be in the game for 'the right reasons' a bit odd.

He passed the interview, so obviously convinced those in charge that he wanted the job and had the talent. I don't really care whether they love RL or not.

[Luckycreed]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There will be numbers to judge on next year too, commercial income, matchday income and gates.

Also sky viewing figures , the most important number of all, but he won't have bee in the job long enough to have a big influence on any of that, but he will have a two year "work up" leading into the next pay  tv rights deal. that will be his baby.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

1 hour ago, Luckycreed said:

The time to judge him, and the new boss of the RFL will be when ink hits paper on the next broadcasting agreement with numbers rather than words being the metrics used to make the judgement.

Yes that is what ultimately will determine if he was the correct person for the appointment but you would expect to see some improvement over 12 months which is why I suggested the judgement process should start, rather than say now, when any changes he has started making have yet to take effect

[Damien]

7 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Some very selective use of new grounds, saints were losing 750k a year in Knowsley Road and are now making money, Warrington have blown their income streams out of the water at what level they were at, so it's probably the terms you have for the new grounds that will be if you lose revenue streams or boost them. 

Exactly.

New stadiums can be fantastic assets for any club and can be a major income stream. This is when they have been planned  by the club and when they will own the said stadium and receive the entire  benefit from it. The trouble is with the clubs that have jumped into new stadiums that they don't even own and which, on the whole, are totally unsuitable for their needs. This has been largely because their financial incompetence in the first place has left them in such a vulnerable position and they often have little choice.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

There will be numbers to judge on next year too, commercial income, matchday income and gates.

do you think he will have such an impact to show figures, to be judged on, on all those in one year?  

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I personally find the need for people to be in the game for 'the right reasons' a bit odd.

He passed the interview, so obviously convinced those in charge that he wanted the job and had the talent. I don't really care whether they love RL or not.

It might be that they could not afford him otherwise 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

do you think he will have such an impact to show figures, to be judged on, on all those in one year?  

After 18 months in my role I was expected to make a difference. At the end of next season there should be progress, even if it is just the start of some positive trends.

[Marauder]

21 hours ago, Number 16 said:

Such a selective use of numbers!

The average attendance figures for the years you highlight were;

81/82 - 5268

95/96 - 5515

2018 - 8547

Increases of 62% and 55% respectively. 

Selective use of teams, 3 who have gone very well in super league and 3 who haven't, when I get time I'll go through every team who played in the top division in 81/82 and then take the same 16 teams average gate for 2018 to find an average.

[Lowdesert]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

After 18 months in my role I was expected to make a difference. At the end of next season there should be progress, even if it is just the start of some positive trends.

we're not talking about your role though, we're talking about Elstons.  Its a new role, with a new organisation, SL, that appears to be redefining itself into a self managing entity who's views and aims we aren't quite sure of yet.  We also have change in the RFL and how they operate might be different.  All this will impact on any individual finding his way.  Id say 2 - 5 years would be a better benchmark to guage from.

'Meaningful' can mean anything to any number of people.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

we're not talking about your role though, we're talking about Elstons.  Its a new role, with a new organisation, SL, that appears to be redefining itself into a self managing entity who's views and aims we aren't quite sure of yet.  We also have change in the RFL and how they operate might be different.  All this will impact on any individual finding his way.  Id say 2 - 5 years would be a better benchmark to guage from.

'Meaningful' can mean anything to any number of people.

OK, after 18 months he should be expected to make a difference in his role. I accept that some of the benefits may be slightly longer term, but we need to be seeing something - there needs to be some form of payoff, even if it is just increased crowds from the removal of the S8's.

There are tactical things that need fixing as well as strategic.

[redjonn]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

OK, after 18 months he should be expected to make a difference in his role. I accept that some of the benefits may be slightly longer term, but we need to be seeing something - there needs to be some form of payoff, even if it is just increased crowds from the removal of the S8's.

There are tactical things that need fixing as well as strategic.

Need to see what organisation and staffing he builds. That will take time but will show were his priorities are hence give a sense of direction.

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Need to see what organisation and staffing he builds. That will take time but will show were his priorities are hence give a sense of direction.

yep, it will be interesting to see the amount of resources invested, we'll have an idea whether it will be more of the same (with different people) or a genuine change. 

Has anybody heard anything from Mark Foster, who was SLE General Manager (via the RFL) for a while?

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

OK, after 18 months he should be expected to make a difference in his role. I accept that some of the benefits may be slightly longer term, but we need to be seeing something - there needs to be some form of payoff, even if it is just increased crowds from the removal of the S8's.

There are tactical things that need fixing as well as strategic.

One of the reasons I think he will need more time for is getting agreement.  If we cast our minds back, several were tasked to look into all parts of the business.  That dragged on and on, in fact, I'm not sure if those efforts are actually complete.

Another is the transparency.  Wood attempted to create an image of transparency, but appeared to cloak issues when they suited, but Elston (I don't believe) wont have that luxury.

An interesting development to add to all this, is a parallel with Leeds United wanting a bigger piece of the TV deal in football, compared to our Champs clubs chasing the same thing.  

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

One of the reasons I think he will need more time for is getting agreement.  If we cast our minds back, several were tasked to look into all parts of the business.  That dragged on and on, in fact, I'm not sure if those efforts are actually complete.

Another is the transparency.  Wood attempted to create an image of transparency, but appeared to cloak issues when they suited, but Elston (I don't believe) wont have that luxury.

An interesting development to add to all this, is a parallel with Leeds United wanting a bigger piece of the TV deal in football, compared to our Champs clubs chasing the same thing.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting miracles overnight, and if all the numbers aren't great next year, that isn't a sign of failure, there are structural and strategic things behind the scenes which will play out over a longer period, but I do think there needs to be some positive signs, whether that is new partners, new approach to marketing/media, profile of events etc. these are things that don't necessarily need 3 to 5 years to see some improvement in, based on the current position!

I hope he brings some optimism back, and some swagger, because at the moment, there isn't a whole lot that is genuinely exciting and whetting the appetite.

[Angelic Cynic]

42 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

One of the reasons I think he will need more time for is getting agreement.  If we cast our minds back, several were tasked to look into all parts of the business.  That dragged on and on, in fact, I'm not sure if those efforts are actually complete.

Another is the transparency.  Wood attempted to create an image of transparency, but appeared to cloak issues when they suited, but Elston (I don't believe) wont have that luxury.

An interesting development to add to all this, is a parallel with Leeds United wanting a bigger piece of the TV deal in football, compared to our Champs clubs chasing the same thing.  

    He wants to try controlling his employers amongst the elite owners.

   

Quote

 I don’t want to just pinpoint individuals but the guy in charge at Bradford is the biggest hypocrite in the game. He talks about self-interest from Super League and then sits and votes on a system that more or less ensured his side went up to the Championship. That made me chuckle.

   Hudgell and co.won the vote they wanted - why bang on about another club owner.

    As far as a pleb like myself understood it - Bradford were promoted by winning the play-offs between the clubs finishing in positions 2 - 5 in League 1.This was agreed before the 2018 campaign commenced.

    As a pleb I didn't see how the vote affected that situation - I therefore don't see how Andrew Chalmers can be a hypocrite.

   I'm at a loss to understand how any vote on that day ensured Bradford would be promoted.

     Perhaps lack of transparency continues for those who pay at the turnstiles.

[Lowdesert]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting miracles overnight, and if all the numbers aren't great next year, that isn't a sign of failure, there are structural and strategic things behind the scenes which will play out over a longer period, but I do think there needs to be some positive signs, whether that is new partners, new approach to marketing/media, profile of events etc. these are things that don't necessarily need 3 to 5 years to see some improvement in, based on the current position!

I hope he brings some optimism back, and some swagger, because at the moment, there isn't a whole lot that is genuinely exciting and whetting the appetite.

Initially, when I posted this, the comments were purely regarding stadia and of him 'having a dig'.  Although I think some must be improved or other arrangements made, I think that is just one of many issues he is trying to address.  The mention of how clubs are marketing themselves etc and to seek new opportunities is all good.  Strange how people translate his interview details though.

[Lowdesert]

8 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

    He wants to try controlling his employers amongst the elite owners.

   

   Hudgell and co.won the vote they wanted - why bang on about another club owner.

    As far as a pleb like myself understood it - Bradford were promoted by winning the play-offs between the clubs finishing in positions 2 - 5 in League 1.This was agreed before the 2018 campaign commenced.

    As a pleb I didn't see how the vote affected that situation - I therefore don't see how Andrew Chalmers can be a hypocrite.

   I'm at a loss to understand how any vote on that day ensured Bradford would be promoted.

     Perhaps lack of transparency continues for those who pay at the turnstiles.

Thinks so mate.  A lot would be nice to know for us fans, but I doubt it will make it into the general public.

[Luckycreed]

19 hours ago, Marauder said:

Selective use of teams, 3 who have gone very well in super league and 3 who haven't, when I get time I'll go through every team who played in the top division in 81/82 and then take the same 16 teams average gate for 2018 to find an average.

I have been looking at historical attendance trends, but it is very difficult to compare figures for a sixteen team league with a twelve team league as the old sixteen team League had a much longer "tail"  and the "glamour" clubs of whatever era where only meeting twice rather than three times in a season.Also prior to 1973 it was a thirty to thirty two team league  split into two geographic "conferences " making comparisons even harder.

I think what we can conclusively say was there was a big drop in Rugby League attendances during the second half of the sixties, quite dramatic actually, figures bottomed out in the early seventies and then started picking up again but never back to the glory days of the fifties and early sixties.

The situation since the late seventies has remained pretty constant, those  clubs in the top five or six spots on the ladder pull  decent enough crowds and everyone else struggles,The names at the top have changed a bit over the years but the general trend has remained the same, with no doubt the odd exception to the rule here and there.

[Marauder]

14 minutes ago, Luckycreed said:

I have been looking at historical attendance trends, but it is very difficult to compare figures for a sixteen team league with a twelve team league as the old sixteen team League had a much longer "tail"  and the "glamour" clubs of whatever era where only meeting twice rather than three times in a season.Also prior to 1973 it was a thirty to thirty two team league  split into two geographic "conferences " making comparisons even harder.

I think what we can conclusively say was there was a big drop in Rugby League attendances during the second half of the sixties, quite dramatic actually, figures bottomed out in the early seventies and then started picking up again but never back to the glory days of the fifties and early sixties.

The situation since the late seventies has remained pretty constant, those  clubs in the top five or six spots on the ladder pull  decent enough crowds and everyone else struggles,The names at the top have changed a bit over the years but the general trend has remained the same, with no doubt the odd exception to the rule here and there.

Totally agree and that's the point I was trying to make.

Out of interest I also looked at Doncaster's one and only time in the top division and it surprised me that even though they finished bottom they managed an average crowd of 3,495 which was higher than Salford, Wakefield and Sheffield's average, their best crowd was 6,440 against Leeds which was their third game of the season and after beating St Helens away and Widnes at home, makes you wonder what a successful club in Doncaster could achieve.