Jump to content

Robert Elstone - value for money ?


Recommended Posts

It seems to me that the job of Elstone is, amongst other things, to agree a TV contract.  But that's only one thing.  His biggest job would to bring RL into the 21st century.

But he will have done a good job if he gets new investment into the name and the above points are linked to that.  RL/SL is going nowhere without organisation and outside investment, which would want a return, and would want a measure of influence and control.

My worry is that, thanks to Australian influence, the game that I grew up to enjoy and love is turning into a souped up version of American Football.  But thats not Elstone's fault.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If his position is that he can't see what a Rugby League team from North America  playing in Super League brings to it, when North American is the most lucrative sports market in the world i can't see

Could well be the case .... with the narrative that sky aren’t bothered about Toronto as they will not sell any dishes there .  That argument baffles me, as surely sports subscribers are interested in

I think we can only truly judge him at the end of this upcoming period.  He should be judged on the new TV deal, commercial/sponsorship income at that time, and any movement on the private invest

10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It seems to me that the job of Elstone is, amongst other things, to agree a TV contract.  But that's only one thing.  His biggest job would to bring RL into the 21st century.

But he will have done a good job if he gets new investment into the name and the above points are linked to that.  RL/SL is going nowhere without organisation and outside investment, which would want a return, and would want a measure of influence and control.

My worry is that, thanks to Australian influence, the game that I grew up to enjoy and love is turning into a souped up version of American Football.  But thats not Elstone's fault.

How can his only job be to negotiate a tv contract. Elstone earns a massive salary, even if he does manage to negotiate an increased tv deal for SL, most if not all of it will need to go towards paying Robert Elstone.

He has done a good job if he brings investment into the sport???? He is actively chasing away and trying to block investment into the sport.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DavidM said:

Not sure he played much of a role in Everton’s decline or otherwise on the pitch , but he did a hell of a lot off the pitch and was very highly regarded indeed

He tried to relocate Everton to Kirkby, miles outside the city. After that failed (which left him “bitterly disappointed”) he then got desperate and was all for sharing a stadium with Liverpool FC.

Don’t know if he contributed to their decline, he certainly did little to halt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Elstone can’t see what Toronto bring to Super League, this shows how little vision and ambition he has for the sport. 

Given that he is the person talking to Sky about the new TV contract then perhaps his negativity about Toronto is an indicator of Sky’s view. If Sky were offering more cash subject to Toronto being in SL he would hardly be trying to prevent that.

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could well be the case .... with the narrative that sky aren’t bothered about Toronto as they will not sell any dishes there .  That argument baffles me, as surely sports subscribers are interested in a competition with big names. Having Leigh in for example (which is my team so can’t offend anyone), would sell maybe a thousand more subscriptions , but surely this would be small fry vs. having a North American team with SBW and the interest that brings. As a superleague neutral , I am far more interested in the competition with them in than not . 

Edited by Ooh Ah Timmy Street
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cameron Highlander said:

You are assuming here that the people who set and manage his KPI's know just how to do so, and what a KPI is.

Hetherington, McManus at al will definitely know and since he reports to them it is fairly safe to assume that my assumption is correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Elstone can’t see what Toronto bring to Super League, this shows how little vision and ambition he has for the sport. 

He is not employed by the sport but by SL. As I understand it his main criteria revolves around commercial development for the SL clubs. He has no broad remit nor any visionary requirement. By their very nature these type of appointments tend to be short-term so he is likely to have very little interest in anything other than that which he was recruited to deliver: whatever this is was not made clear to the cannon-fodder.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Given that he is the person talking to Sky about the new TV contract then perhaps his negativity about Toronto is an indicator of Sky’s view. If Sky were offering more cash subject to Toronto being in SL he would hardly be trying to prevent that.

If that was the case why have Sky shown so many Toronto games over the last few years and so few games of Leigh/Featherstone who’d likely replace them 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If that was the case why have Sky shown so many Toronto games over the last few years and so few games of Leigh/Featherstone who’d likely replace them 

You know the answer to that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Yes, it’s because sky do want to show Toronto games and they do add value to the tv deal 

Not because they got them for free then ?

Anyway, I’m sure Elstone is much more informed than you and his tone suggests you are completely wrong. But happy trolling anyway.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ooh Ah Timmy Street said:

Could well be the case .... with the narrative that sky aren’t bothered about Toronto as they will not sell any dishes there .  That argument baffles me, as surely sports subscribers are interested in a competition with big names. Having Leigh in for example (which is my team so can’t offend anyone), would sell maybe a thousand more subscriptions , but surely this would be small fry vs. having a North American team with SBW and the interest that brings. As a superleague neutral , I am far more interested in the competition with them in than not . 

I always go back to Vic Wakeling’s (Head of Sky Sports) comments when he was asked about Paris being included in the first SL. He said Sky were not particularly in favour of it and saw no value in their inclusion but told Maurice Lindsay they wouldn’t interfere if he wanted them in. There’s a very insightful interview with him in Phil Caplan’s book SL - The first ten years.

  • Like 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Not because they got them for free then ?

Anyway, I’m sure Elstone is much more informed than you and his tone suggests you are completely wrong. But happy trolling anyway.

Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Catalans, our 5 best and most successful clubs are in favour of having Toronto in Super League. I guess they are clueless too and should take advice from Wakefield and Hull kr.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Catalans, our 5 best and most successful clubs are in favour of having Toronto in Super League. I guess they are clueless too and should take advice from Wakefield and Hull kr.

Who said anybody should take advice from Wakefield and Hull KR ? You’re just making things up.

  • Like 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

How can his only job be to negotiate a tv contract. Elstone earns a massive salary, even if he does manage to negotiate an increased tv deal for SL, most if not all of it will need to go towards paying Robert Elstone.

He has done a good job if he brings investment into the sport???? He is actively chasing away and trying to block investment into the sport.

I specifically say that that is not his only job.

If you are meaning TWP then you are missing the point about getting investment.  It's arguable that TWP are a liability.

But anyway, you have missed the point.

Edited by Rupert Prince
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DC77 said:

He tried to relocate Everton to Kirkby, miles outside the city. After that failed (which left him “bitterly disappointed”) he then got desperate and was all for sharing a stadium with Liverpool FC.

Don’t know if he contributed to their decline, he certainly did little to halt it.

I confess not being very cogniscent with Everton.  Although for a few years I used to drive past the stadium to work.  Was all this before the Arabs bought Everton?  According to the Guardian, Elstone was involved in a site near the old docks before he moved to SL. This is where they are moving I understand.  So Kirby is a red herring (which is the nicest thing you can say about Kirby)

OK  -  I am not being fair there.  Sorry.

Edited by Rupert Prince
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If that was the case why have Sky shown so many Toronto games over the last few years and so few games of Leigh/Featherstone who’d likely replace them 

Because no one wants to watch them.They add no value to SL

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mushy said:

If there were a plan I imagine it would be all about survival, which in the long term probably means a managed decline as we lose further ground to rival sports. 
 

This is what has worried me for a long time.

Let’s assume TWP are refused entry into SL.  The same teams then offers nothing new to SKY.  There are already rumours that the next SKY deal will be for less money.  If so this may lead to a reduction to 10 teams so that those teams have the same TV money as they do now.

Then as the game continues to offer the same product SKY again reduce their deal ... what happens next.

I keep asking the same question on here ‘How can the game increase its income by retaining the same model’.  But no one seems to be able to offer an answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I keep asking the same question on here ‘How can the game increase its income by retaining the same model’.  But no one seems to be able to offer an answer."

Possibly because ateotd we are just fans, nothing more. 

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...