Super League Accounts

[The Rocket]

There was an  increase in the `salaries and wages` from  £246 781 in 2018 to £904 241 to the year ending December 31 2019, ( a £657 460 or 266% increase) with an increase in average staff numbers from 2 in 2018 to 15 in 2019. That is a significant increase and works out at 13 extra staff at £50573. That`s only an average of course the exact make up and function of the extra staff isn`t mentioned.

An increase in staff numbers should not necessarily be viewed in a negative manner. This can be the result of an organisation that is growing or using its resources to pursue growth. What would be very interesting to know is in what function these extra staff have been employed.

The decline in sponsorship income from £2.024m to £1.675m a 17% decrease is more concerning especially given that this does not include 2020 and the downturn in the economy due to Covid-19. However they do mention this sponsorship decline is offset and may exceed the 2019 figure due to a 50% increase in the value of the Betfred sponsorship deal. Which is on the face of it and without knowing the value of the existing deal would seem a significant vote of confidence in the organisation. The end figure will largely be determined by how much other sponsorships are affected and the ability to attract new sponsors in the current economic climate.

What I would be interested to know is where have these extra staff been employed and does this reveal a particular business strategy that the executive are pursuing.

 

https://www.totalrl.com/super-league-accounts-show-decline-in-sponsorship-income/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=super-league-accounts-show-decline-in-sponsorship-income

[Man of Kent]

It’s to do with the ‘split’ from the RFL.

SL got rid of Nigel Wood and brought in their own man (Elstone) to direct their affairs from a new, dedicated office in Manchester instead of by the RFL from Red Hall (RFL HQ in Leeds) as previously.

The rising staff costs are Elstone and his Manchester chums (commercial, marketing etc.), some of who will have been at Red Hall.

[Damien]

The increase in staff would have been due to the creation of SLE and included the transfer of some staff and functions from the RFL to SLE. 

[RigbyLuger]

An obvious fact which seems to have been ignored by those who want to present an agenda against Super League/Elstone for whatever reason (but would like to see their club in it.)

[Alffi 7]

I guess we would see a corresponding reduction in the RFL salaries for the same period, that's a bit of a none story.

 

The sponsorship income reducing is concerning, especially given Elstone was brought in for two reasons, to increase commercial income from sponsorship, and to deliver the new TV deal. A 50% increase in the SL naming rights is impressive, but we need a balanced portfolio of other partners too. 

 

He will live or die on the TV deal I would expect.

[The Rocket]

10 minutes ago, Alffi 7 said:

I guess we would see a corresponding reduction in the RFL salaries for the same period, that's a bit of a none story.

 

The sponsorship income reducing is concerning, especially given Elstone was brought in for two reasons, to increase commercial income from sponsorship, and to deliver the new TV deal. A 50% increase in the SL naming rights is impressive, but we need a balanced portfolio of other partners too. 

 

He will live or die on the TV deal I would expect.

With regards a balanced sponsorship portfolio most codes seem to have a sponsor in categories such as a car company, law firm, fast food outlet, telecommunications , alcohol company although some of these are done through the clubs. The NRL have a sponsorship with a large retail outlet and a TV manufacturer.

Given that Betfred is the naming rights sponsor a 50% increase should be a fairly significant figure and a real vote of confidence in your organisation.

Getting back to secondary sponsors I can see how a `grooming product` could fit in with a suite of sponsors that associates itself with a code. Whether League and a beauty care range is a good fit I`m not sure, however that is a job for the advertising companies. Hitching a beauty care range to SBW could definitely work as he cuts across all codes and would bring attention to RL as well. Maybe this is part of the negotiations between SL and the new owner of Toronto.

[Dave T]

46 minutes ago, Alffi 7 said:

The sponsorship income reducing is concerning, especially given Elstone was brought in for two reasons, to increase commercial income from sponsorship, and to deliver the new TV deal. A 50% increase in the SL naming rights is impressive, but we need a balanced portfolio of other partners too. 

Yes, I do think this is one of the biggest concerns and challenges we face as a game.

Looking back using the waybackmachine site - a quick look at 2011 shows the following partner logos on the front page of the SL website:

William Hill, Steeden, Sky Sports, engage, carnegie, Frontline, Gillette, Puma, Co-operative, Irn Bru, Peters Pies, Holiday Inn, DeWalt, Valvoline, Polar, Emirates

When you look at today's website:

Northern, Patient Line, BetFred, Dacia, Batchelors

There are two issues here, firstly sheer volume, and secondly how we present them. Looking back 9 years ago we presented suppliers that could also be listed today - Steeden and Sky Sports could be added to that list. The BBC are also a broadcasting partner who should be listed.  That straight away makes the panel of partners look stronger. We then also have the partners that are signed up by the RFL - Hummell and Ronseal for example.  Secondly, we appear to have fewer 'sponsors'  as opposed to suppliers interested. 

I understand the technicalities around RFL versus SLE and I think the partner list looked more attractive 9 years ago due to cross-subsidisation of sponsorships etc. but I do think we need to be a bit more positive about how we present our partners.

[The Rocket]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I do think this is one of the biggest concerns and challenges we face as a game.

Looking back using the waybackmachine site - a quick look at 2011 shows the following partner logos on the front page of the SL website:

William Hill, Steeden, Sky Sports, engage, carnegie, Frontline, Gillette, Puma, Co-operative, Irn Bru, Peters Pies, Holiday Inn, DeWalt, Valvoline, Polar, Emirates

When you look at today's website:

Northern, Patient Line, BetFred, Dacia, Batchelors

There are two issues here, firstly sheer volume, and secondly how we present them. Looking back 9 years ago we presented suppliers that could also be listed today - Steeden and Sky Sports could be added to that list. The BBC are also a broadcasting partner who should be listed.  That straight away makes the panel of partners look stronger. We then also have the partners that are signed up by the RFL - Hummell and Ronseal for example.  Secondly, we appear to have fewer 'sponsors'  as opposed to suppliers interested. 

I understand the technicalities around RFL versus SLE and I think the partner list looked more attractive 9 years ago due to cross-subsidisation of sponsorships etc. but I do think we need to be a bit more positive about how we present our partners.

You are dead right. Perceptions are everything. And the layout can make it clear the priority of sponsor commitment.

[The Future is League]

5 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

It’s to do with the ‘split’ from the RFL.

SL got rid of Nigel Wood and brought in their own man (Elstone) to direct their affairs from a new, dedicated office in Manchester instead of by the RFL from Red Hall (RFL HQ in Leeds) as previously.

The rising staff costs are Elstone and his Manchester chums (commercial, marketing etc.), some of who will have been at Red Hall.

So Robert Elstone didn't get enough money to cover him and his chums wages, is that right?

[Derwent]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

So Robert Elstone didn't get enough money to cover him and his chums wages, is that right?

No. There were staff employed by the RFL who were working exclusively on SL related things. The RFL recharged their salaries to SLE each year, along with costs for other central admin functions.

Those staff have now transferred their employment to SLE who now pay these staff directly and the RFL now charges £600k less a year to SLE.

SLE were paying for these people anyway, it is not a new cost, it is just structured differently.

[saddleworth]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

No. There were staff employed by the RFL who were working exclusively on SL related things. The RFL recharged their salaries to SLE each year, along with costs for other central admin functions.

Those staff have now transferred their employment to SLE who now pay these staff directly and the RFL now charges £600k less a year to SLE.

SLE were paying for these people anyway, it is not a new cost, it is just structured differently.

How many times have we heard that last sentence?.

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, saddleworth said:

How many times have we heard that last sentence?.

How many times has the same thing been explained on this forum alone but still some posters don’t understand 

[Damien]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Looking back using the waybackmachine site - a quick look at 2011 shows the following partner logos on the front page of the SL website:

William Hill, Steeden, Sky Sports, engage, carnegie, Frontline, Gillette, Puma, Co-operative, Irn Bru, Peters Pies, Holiday Inn, DeWalt, Valvoline, Polar, Emirates

When you look at today's website:

Northern, Patient Line, BetFred, Dacia, Batchelors

Blue chip sponsors want to be associated with similar blue chip companies. The 2011 list has numerous companies that other companies would like to be associated with because it suits their own image. Gillette, Emirates, Puma would be a good fit for any sport. The recent list just screams cheap and cheerful and many companies simply wouldn't want to be associated with such a line up.

[The Future is League]

3 hours ago, Derwent said:

No. There were staff employed by the RFL who were working exclusively on SL related things. The RFL recharged their salaries to SLE each year, along with costs for other central admin functions.

Those staff have now transferred their employment to SLE who now pay these staff directly and the RFL now charges £600k less a year to SLE.

SLE were paying for these people anyway, it is not a new cost, it is just structured differently.

I'm i right in thinking that Robert Elstone was hired by the super league clubs to generate more money for them? If so he's clearly failed. I don't think he even generated enough money to cover his wages yet

[Alffi 7]

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

I'm i right in thinking that Robert Elstone was hired by the super league clubs to generate more money for them? If so he's clearly failed. I don't think he even generated enough money to cover his wages yet

The extra 50% from Betfred in 2021 will more than do that I should think.

[Dave T]

Just got round to reading the 'article' on this site, and God it is dire. 

Apparently costs increased substantially and income remained broadly static. This ignores the fact that SLE took £800k more of the TV distribution and spent an additional £750k on people costs. 

Literally the only story here was the drop in commercial income, which they underplay by saying Betfred will pay more. But why was commercial income down? Which sponsors left, why weren't replacents signed up etc? 

They focused on the people costs which is a nothing story and ignored the actual story. 

Jeez. 

[RobertAM]

well they got Papa Johns and rumour has it players will be able to order 2 additional toppings in 2021..so obviously their top marketing people are on it.

[The Future is League]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Just got round to reading the 'article' on this site, and God it is dire. 

Apparently costs increased substantially and income remained broadly static. This ignores the fact that SLE took £800k more of the TV distribution and spent an additional £750k on people costs. 

Literally the only story here was the drop in commercial income, which they underplay by saying Betfred will pay more. But why was commercial income down? Which sponsors left, why weren't replacents signed up etc? 

They focused on the people costs which is a nothing story and ignored the actual story. 

Jeez. 

I thought that was Robert Elstones job, but obviously I'm wrong

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I thought that was Robert Elstones job, but obviously I'm wrong

Elstone is accountable for the whole lot, it's his business in effect, but there is likely a specific role leading up commercial performance. 

[The Rocket]

On 29/09/2020 at 20:42, Dave T said:

Literally the only story here was the drop in commercial income, which they underplay by saying Betfred will pay more.

 

On 29/09/2020 at 06:00, Alffi 7 said:

The extra 50% from Betfred in 2021 will more than do that I should think.

That is a major increase from your naming rights sponsor, a pretty big vote of confidence. It even suggests that if they hadn`t of upped the amount there may have been alternatives.

Hope fully now Elstone can monetise sponsors like Papa Johns who I think are getting a pretty good deal not having to stump up some cash for the exposure they are receiving for the promos.

I saw a couple of days ago the OurLeague  app. had reached 150 000 users, that is starting to reach decent figures as well. Haven`t seen it but could start to tie that in with your other sponsors to add value.

So it mightn`t be all doom and gloom, we always have to remind ourselves it`s a very tough market at the moment and surviving could well be at the moment a very good result.

It is easy to forget there would have been a Kangaroo tour this year but for Covid and the WC next so that`s a pretty handy promotional platform. I think Kangaroo tours will become a regular occurrence now and it is up to the RFL to organise other internationals to fill the gaps. I think big events and the profile associated will be the way to reengage sponsors.