Robert Elstone... Why?

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's almost as if the game's leadership is a lightning rod for people who don't want to address the real problem. 

Surely it is up to the games leadership to address the real problems and show leadership? That is their role and that is what they get paid handsomely to do. They act as a lightning rod because they continually fail to do this.

[whatmichaelsays]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely it is up to the games leadership to address the real problems and show leadership? That is their role and that is what they get paid handsomely to do. They act as a lightning rod because they continually fail to do this.

To a point yes, but the game's stakeholders need to show a willing to be led. 

You could have put Steve Jobs in charge of the RFL and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference. 

Blaming Rimmer, Woods, Elstone etc might be the easy answer (and I'm by no means defending their records), but it isn't the answer that addresses the fundamental problems in the sport. If the sport is going through leadership at such a rate, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. 

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

To a point yes, but the game's stakeholders need to show a willing to be led. 

You could have put Steve Jobs in charge of the RFL and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference. 

Blaming Rimmer, Woods, Elstone etc might be the easy answer (and I'm by no means defending their records), but it isn't the answer that addresses the fundamental problems in the sport. If the sport is going through leadership at such a rate, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. 

Eggsbloodyzactly 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

To a point yes, but the game's stakeholders need to show a willing to be led. 

You could have put Steve Jobs in charge of the RFL and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference. 

Blaming Rimmer, Woods, Elstone etc might be the easy answer (and I'm by no means defending their records), but it isn't the answer that addresses the fundamental problems in the sport. If the sport is going through leadership at such a rate, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. 

By people I thought you meant the people on here, and of course you are quite correct in what you are saying. Leaders do need to lead though and cut through this. Lewis was the last leader who did this. Lindsay did this. Looking after your power base and protecting your paycheck isn't leading and is what we have largely had since.

[JohnM]

Prior to Mo, though, what leadership did the game have  in the previous 10, 20 or more years when the pro and semi pro game nearly died?

[whatmichaelsays]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

By people I thought you meant the people on here, and of course you are quite correct in what you are saying. Leaders do need to lead though and cut through this. Lewis was the last leader who did this. Lindsay did this. Looking after your power base and protecting your paycheck isn't leading and is what we have largely had since.

I think the whole "SL split" saga demonstrated how the Super League clubs didn't understand the problem. 

When Elstone was presented as this shiny new thing, it was necessary for the clubs to "break from an RFL that was holding them back", an RFL that was "selling the sport short to sponsors" and one that was "signing up too hastily to undervalued TV deals" (despite the latter two being subject to club vote). 

Yet when Rimmer secures a financial lifeline from HM Govt, suddenly he's not so bad and the clubs can't wait to jump back in bed with him.

The clubs left the RFL because they felt the leadership was holding them back with poor commercial deals and TV contracts. Since going with their chosen leader, they have poorer commercial deals and TV contracts. Something tells me the leadership isn't the real problem. 

[ATLANTISMAN]

7 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the whole "SL split" saga demonstrated how the Super League clubs didn't understand the problem. 

When Elstone was presented as this shiny new thing, it was necessary for the clubs to "break from an RFL that was holding them back", an RFL that was "selling the sport short to sponsors" and one that was "signing up too hastily to undervalued TV deals" (despite the latter two being subject to club vote). 

Yet when Rimmer secures a financial lifeline from HM Govt, suddenly he's not so bad and the clubs can't wait to jump back in bed with him.

The clubs left the RFL because they felt the leadership was holding them back with poor commercial deals and TV contracts. Since going with their chosen leader, they have poorer commercial deals and TV contracts. Something tells me the leadership isn't the real problem. 

You have hit the nail on the head RL has a massive IMAGE problem and that will only be addressed with.

* More internationals 

* 3/4 star players/role models 

* At least 3/4 successful clubs outside of the heartlands 

SKY has been brilliant for Rugby League in this country however we need more Internationals on the BBC desperately that is why the RLWC 2021 (Maybe now 2022) is so important.

Many praised the 2013 WC however in my opinion it was totally undersold tickets were too cheap and sponsorships were literally given away for peanuts.

 

P 

[Blind side johnny]

19 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I like V’Landys, and i liked Lindsay. 2 ideas men, who made the game change, having seen its potential. In both cases, you instantly knew what their vision was (and how much they believed in the game). Could anyone set out what Elstone’s vision is? 

You are comparing two entirely different roles. Elstone was appointed by SLE, not the RFL. His job was clearly to increase the commercial value of SL and had nothing to do with the rest of the sport.

His vision was "more dosh", as defined by those who recruited him. Please don't forget all of their part in this and simply make Elstone their whipping boy. It has been purely and simply the avarice of certain SL chairmen for money and power that has led to this pretty pass.

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

You are comparing two entirely different roles. Elstone was appointed by SLE, not the RFL. His job was clearly to increase the commercial value of SL and had nothing to do with the rest of the sport.

His vision was "more dosh", as defined by those who recruited him. Please don't forget all of their part in this and simply make Elstone their whipping boy. It has been purely and simply the avarice of certain SL chairmen for money and power that has led to this pretty pass.

This! The true power remains with the club chairmen.

[lucky 7]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

You are comparing two entirely different roles. Elstone was appointed by SLE, not the RFL. His job was clearly to increase the commercial value of SL and had nothing to do with the rest of the sport.

His vision was "more dosh", as defined by those who recruited him. Please don't forget all of their part in this and simply make Elstone their whipping boy. It has been purely and simply the avarice of certain SL chairmen for money and power that has led to this pretty pass.

So he's been in the job 2 1/2 years so how many marks would you give him out of 10?

[frank]

3 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

So he's been in the job 2 1/2 years so how many marks would you give him out of 10?

After the WP fiasco  zero.

[M j M]

On 03/11/2020 at 23:07, Loiner said:

Pretty much in a nut shell, they were all a waste of space and fresh air.

Or, just maybe, running Rugby League is an impossibly difficult job with expectations set by an part-idealistic/part-f3ckwit fanbase which are far in excess of what the administrators could realistically achieve?

[M j M]

On 03/11/2020 at 22:03, Whippet13 said:

Few have anything bad to say about Richard Lewis, the one you have missed off and the only "outsider" to get the job.

Yes I know everyone was massively positive about amongst other things the licencing process and the Stobart sponsorship deal.

[M j M]

13 hours ago, JohnM said:

Prior to Mo, though, what leadership did the game have  in the previous 10, 20 or more years when the pro and semi pro game nearly died?

This is not a true characterisation.

Lindsay came to the RFL in 1992. Prior to that David Oxley was a very effective administrator who took over in the 1970s when the game was at its nadir, soothed over relations with the amateur game, built up a very good portfolio of sponsors, oversaw the game's late '90s mini-boom period and saw massively more adventurous international plans, crowds and stadia - including taking GB games to Wembley.

[Blind side johnny]

11 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

So he's been in the job 2 1/2 years so how many marks would you give him out of 10?

I am not defending his performance. I can't say how effective he has been as I don't know his remit. My point is that he can become the target of ire whilst those actually responsible for the separation of SL from the RFL, which is the true core of the problem, may get off scot-free.

[Blind side johnny]

8 hours ago, M j M said:

This is not a true characterisation.

Lindsay came to the RFL in 1992. Prior to that David Oxley was a very effective administrator who took over in the 1970s when the game was at its nadir, soothed over relations with the amateur game, built up a very good portfolio of sponsors, oversaw the game's late '90s mini-boom period and saw massively more adventurous international plans, crowds and stadia - including taking GB games to Wembley.

Yes, Oxley never really got the credit that he deserved when taking over a malfunctioning organisation and settling it down and actually making real progress.

Many will not recognise this, I'm sure, but they were very different days in RL and sport in general.

[JohnM]

This from Dave Hadfield in the Independent. 28 years ago.

Seems fair. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-league-the-final-hooter-oxley-leaves-a-healthy-legacy-on-the-day-his-successor-is-named-rugby-1555844.html

Same old same old though.

"While other sports trumpet their often very flimsy wares from the rooftops, there's an element in rugby league which is never happy unless something's going wrong.'

"People in the game claim very readily that it is The Greatest Game of All, and of course we believe that it is. But then they think that if it is not sweeping the country, it must be because it isn't being marketed properly. That ignores the fact that there are 15 million people who prefer soccer and always will, and four million who prefer rugby union and always will."

"More clubs are in financial trouble than ever, and there are no crocodile tears from Oxley when he says that it is 'almost inevitable' that some will fold."

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

Yes, Oxley never really got the credit that he deserved when taking over a malfunctioning organisation and settling it down and actually making real progress.

Many will not recognise this, I'm sure, but they were very different days in RL and sport in general.

Agree about David Oxley, and David Howes did a good job along side him. It was he who got the successful double header going at Old Trafford.

[Damien]

 

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

On 05/11/2020 at 09:52, Gooleboy said:

Agree about David Oxley, and David Howes did a good job along side him. It was he who got the successful double header going at Old Trafford.

I have nothing but GOOD things to say about David Oxley and David Howes.

There were many good things that came about  during the time David Oxley was in charge (And remember there was no SKY money then) 

* Expansion

* Tests at Wembley v Australia 

* Russian Rugby League 

* Very good relations with French RL

* Tours to New Zealand/PNG

And above all an excellent administration all done on the back of one big pay day every year WEMBLEY CC Final that was pretty much it.

In another life David Oxley would have made an excellent ambassador.

 

Paul

[DOGFATHER]

On 04/11/2020 at 10:19, JohnM said:

Prior to Mo, though, what leadership did the game have  in the previous 10, 20 or more years when the pro and semi pro game nearly died?

Many quote the pro and semi pro game nearly died prior to Sky, but did it? A few of the top clubs, Wigan particularly were on the verge, but I'd argue the game outside the top division was far stronger than it has been since the introduction of SL. The lower leagues were certainly stronger on the whole, had bigger gates, and there were regular international series that saw much bigger gates and interest than we do now.

The fundamental reason the game was on its knees, has not altered since Sky was introduced. Clubs spending more than they can afford. This aspect has not changed in the 40 years I have been watching the game.

Wigan swept all before them because they were full time, the rest were not. They had to keep winning everything to get near to balancing the books, or at least to keep losses to a manageable level. As soon as they failed to win a couple of trophies, the costs they had accrued became unmanageable and Mo did what he had to, to save his club, and his backside.

Many other clubs were also on the verge, because they had to follow the same self destructive plan as Wigan to compete. 

When the Sky money came rolling in, clubs gained very little in real terms. Player wages increased dramatically, but clubs still followed the same path, spending more than they could afford to gain a competitive advantage on the pitch.

Very little was invested at grass roots level, because the clubs outside of the regular top 4, have needed every penny to stay afloat in the hope of trying to compete.

What has fundamentally changed since Sky's introduction? The gap between the SL sides and those outside has grown. Attendances in the top division have increased overall. However, the net gain to the game is nothing like the spin, many would have you believe. Many teams outside of SL have seen attendance figures dwindle to a fraction of what they were. 

[JohnM]

Well, that's certainly  a point of view. However, there were.. And are... many other changes, management of the sport, technological, sociological for example, that account for the current position of the game. As a Lions fan in the late 1950s to mid 1960s until I moved away, I witnessed at first hand the decline so evident at Station Road, even then.  A good day was when more than 5000 turned up even in the clubs best years.  

Another factor, one of many: Improved road infrastructure meant faster and easier journeys which meant that for example, travel times to the bigger and better clubs were hugely reduced so that only the most hardened and loyal of fans remained to stand on cinder banks, and drink in wooden sheds serving as club houses. 

The "living within your means" argument of course has some merit and will resonate amongst those on here who have borrowed heavily to buy a house. 

[del capo]

I accept both points of view

As for the Sky deal the unsung aspect of it was Big' Bad ' Nigels masterstroke - the funding of the Foundations

[DimmestStar]

Elstone works for the Super League clubs was appointed by them and can only be removed by them. It's entirely a matter for the clubs if they want to keep paying for his services. He isn't working for anyone else and isn't paid by anyone else.

They've just voted 9-2 to keep him so I guess that's the end of the matter.

[Oxford]

On 03/11/2020 at 21:57, JohnM said:

We don't like Elstone.

We don't like Rimmer. 

We don't like Woods

We don't like Lindsey

We don't like anyone.... 

Of course the work done is almost totally invisible, a bit like the 7/8s of the iceberg. The lack of clarity and transparency never helps. And essentially forum and journalists muddy the waters, one because the drama is more important than any truth and the other because the gripe is the crucial issue. Your list could've easily gone backwards to the founding fathers of our sport and this forum would be full of "We should never have left the Union......" and some would've moaned about the union with "Who put them in charge?"

Perhaps all threads should have a word title with a target motif and all posts should just contain strings of words eg "Moany moan, moan......... "