Jump to content

Elstone gone (Merged threads)


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

He said it on numerous occasions mate, I believe I heard it first on a podcast, though each club that has rebranded has said similar - the report on each club and the league came from Winter 2019.

Of course they were going to be supportive of it?

Of course they would support it, but why would they have the idea or instigate it? The branding wasnt really an issue for a broadcaster, Elstone has pretty much talked about the branding and how the game presents itself from day dot. 

SL has had various rebranda, it seems a bit mean spirited to credit possibly the one positive from his tenure to Sky 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 415
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

With respect, I think that is a very one-sided list, and we really shouldn't now give Sky credit for the whole rebrand activity that SL went for. 

Come on Dave, I alluded to the same kind of list of ''achievements'' in my post on this thread - a million quid in wages (for him) increased staff costs, consultancy fees to kill off Toronto, three quarters of a million for Rothschild (Didn't they play this game, in rehearsal before entering into the real deal?) Surely he/they must have known that the clubs were unlikely to go for the deal and therefore committing to pay the 750,000 quid was pure folly. All this is on the expenditure side. Not to mention the loss of the french tv deal and the reduced Sky money, so tell us Dave, what's on the income side of the Profit and Loss account of his tenure? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yipyee said:

For me the clubs should get voting shares based on league position.

This would ensure that the better clubs led the way a bit more.

For example top of SL get 12 votes bottom get 1 etc..

If its a whole proffessional game vote bottom of league 1 gets 1 vote and ascend from there.

 

Did6nt the top Clubs want Elstone appointed? Well that went well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you think Wakefield Trinity are running SL ? 

No but they are voting on clubs dismissal / entry to the competition, based on criteria that they don’t fulfill themselves. I don’t agree with this personally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Come on Dave, I alluded to the same kind of list of ''achievements'' in my post on this thread - a million quid in wages (for him) increased staff costs, consultancy fees to kill off Toronto, three quarters of a million for Rothschild (Didn't they play this game, in rehearsal before entering into the real deal?) Surely he/they must have known that the clubs were unlikely to go for the deal and therefore committing to pay the 750,000 quid was pure folly. All this is on the expenditure side. Not to mention the loss of the french tv deal and the reduced Sky money, so tell us Dave, what's on the income side of the Profit and Loss account of his tenure? 

How much of an increase in staff costs? And not just costs that they now pay direct instead of paying the RFL. 

How much were the consultancy fees to kill off TWP? 

The £750k was something the clubs were aware of. If one of the clubs knew they would never vote for it and was happy to see the gamr incur the cost in bad faith, then I suggest Elstone wasn't the issue there. 

French deal - can you tell us how much we were offered (because some posters here claimed we were expected to pay the costs this time)? 

I'm certainly not gonna spend much time defending Elstone, I'm pretty happy to see him move on, but we don't need to go over the top with criticism. 

Elstone spent his first year restructuring the organisation and the 2nd year handling Covid fallout. I hope we don't panic and undo everything by now claiming that everything that has been done has been a disaster. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ding dong the warlock is dead.

Now it is time for a PLAN to restart the league post Covid.  This will require a VISION which most certainly requires Toronto and Ottawa in it if RL wants to save itself.

Thank God the tide has turned!

'The Pack Will Be Back!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eddie said:

No but they are voting on clubs dismissal / entry to the competition, based on criteria that they don’t fulfill themselves. I don’t agree with this personally. 

So you are saying it was Wakefield Trinity who refused Toronto back into SL ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

How much of an increase in staff costs? And not just costs that they now pay direct instead of paying the RFL. 

How much were the consultancy fees to kill off TWP? 

The £750k was something the clubs were aware of. If one of the clubs knew they would never vote for it and was happy to see the gamr incur the cost in bad faith, then I suggest Elstone wasn't the issue there. 

French deal - can you tell us how much we were offered (because some posters here claimed we were expected to pay the costs this time)? 

I'm certainly not gonna spend much time defending Elstone, I'm pretty happy to see him move on, but we don't need to go over the top with criticism. 

Elstone spent his first year restructuring the organisation and the 2nd year handling Covid fallout. I hope we don't panic and undo everything by now claiming that everything that has been done has been a disaster. 

 

Nothing of any merit has actually been done...but there has been damage and carnage if that is what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

How much of an increase in staff costs? And not just costs that they now pay direct instead of paying the RFL. 

How much were the consultancy fees to kill off TWP? 

The £750k was something the clubs were aware of. If one of the clubs knew they would never vote for it and was happy to see the gamr incur the cost in bad faith, then I suggest Elstone wasn't the issue there. 

French deal - can you tell us how much we were offered (because some posters here claimed we were expected to pay the costs this time)? 

I'm certainly not gonna spend much time defending Elstone, I'm pretty happy to see him move on, but we don't need to go over the top with criticism. 

Elstone spent his first year restructuring the organisation and the 2nd year handling Covid fallout. I hope we don't panic and undo everything by now claiming that everything that has been done has been a disaster. 

 

I'm not trying to be provocative Dave. I don't want an argument about this either.

I'm just looking for a simple comparison between Costs and benefits.

It seems to me that there is hardly anything on the benefit side and for that we paid him a million quid.

With regard to the £750,000 fee, with so much at stake, didn't he present a model to the club chairman about what the deal would probably entail and test the likelihood of them vetoing it before committing to the fee? If he didn't then that's damning enough, without anything else. It means he committed to it blind, hoping for the best.

I have to say, that I don't see my criticism as ''over the top'', I was merely inviting you to put a few items on the benefit side of this (lopsided) equation.

With regard to your last paragraph, I agree with you but I doubt anyone would trash a better structure just for spite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Nothing of any merit has actually been done...but there has been damage and carnage if that is what you mean.

I agree on your first point, not your second, which is sort of my point. 

We've basically had a lick of paint, which is nice, but not going to drive the game forward on its own. 

I get the impression he has been focusing on the bigger things like restructure and private investment, and neglected some of the basic stuff - number of sponsors have reduced. 

There haven't been enough wins to keep the wolves from the door. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree on your first point, not your second, which is sort of my point. 

We've basically had a lick of paint, which is nice, but not going to drive the game forward on its own. 

I get the impression he has been focusing on the bigger things like restructure and private investment, and neglected some of the basic stuff - number of sponsors have reduced. 

There haven't been enough wins to keep the wolves from the door. 

Hey Dave, lend me a thousand quid? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fighting irish said:

I'm not trying to be provocative Dave. I don't want an argument about this either.

I'm just looking for a simple comparison between Costs and benefits.

It seems to me that there is hardly anything on the benefit side and for that we paid him a million quid.

With regard to the £750,000 fee, with so much at stake, didn't he present a model to the club chairman about what the deal would probably entail and test the likelihood of them vetoing it before committing to the fee? If he didn't then that's damning enough, without anything else. It means he committed to it blind, hoping for the best.

I have to say, that I don't see my criticism as ''over the top'', I was merely inviting you to put a few items on the benefit side of this (lopsided) equation.

With regard to your last paragraph, I agree with you but I doubt anyone would trash a better structure just for spite. 

Theres no argument here, I'm just challenging those things you have on the negative side. If you are going to say he has wasted money on x and y, it's fair to ask for that detail. 

I'm not claiming he has done much good stuff, but I'm also not claiming he has increased costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree on your first point, not your second, which is sort of my point. 

We've basically had a lick of paint, which is nice, but not going to drive the game forward on its own. 

I get the impression he has been focusing on the bigger things like restructure and private investment, and neglected some of the basic stuff - number of sponsors have reduced. 

There haven't been enough wins to keep the wolves from the door. 

So it's Warrington's fault ? 🤔😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only say that Elstones time hasn’t exactly been a success for the reasons that have been mentioned but I do wonder how much of a free reign he actually had, even though he didn’t come across to me as a visionary leader.

There isn’t much point in getting a replacement if he or she aren’t going to be allowed to run things as they see fit because the clubs are going off and doing their own thing anyway. The one big thing for me that is holding Super League back is that club chairmenhave too much of a say in the running of the league and they will always put  their clubs over what is best for the league as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Theres no argument here, I'm just challenging those things you have on the negative side. If you are going to say he has wasted money on x and y, it's fair to ask for that detail. 

I'm not claiming he has done much good stuff, but I'm also not claiming he has increased costs. 

Last effort, I promise. His wage bill amounts to a million pounds.

I read an article this evening on another thread (can't remember where it was) which claimed staff wages were increased from  circa 200 K to c 900 K but it did say that most (but not all) of that had previously been RFL costs.

I don't know what the hatchet job on Toronto cost but I believe (it's only my opinion) that the conclusion was written before the investigation was done. Does anyone here, know how much it cost?

With regard to the £750,000 - my point is, given the magnitude of the minimum spend and suspecting he might not carry a unanimous vote his risk assessment was badly flawed.

As it turns out, fatally flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree on your first point, not your second, which is sort of my point. 

We've basically had a lick of paint, which is nice, but not going to drive the game forward on its own. 

I get the impression he has been focusing on the bigger things like restructure and private investment, and neglected some of the basic stuff - number of sponsors have reduced. 

There haven't been enough wins to keep the wolves from the door. 

Post Covid they need Toronto to at least be in the picture...with the short sighted One gone there is now a space for positive movement.   I have to disagree with you about Elstone...he really didn't accomplish anything except continue the slide downwards....time for Argyle to get back in now....his nemesis is now gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably Elstone's biggest failing for me is how he has struggled to manage the narrative, which is ironic as this is one of the things he has banged on about from the start. 

Whoever is the next leader needs to have his team focusing making sure there is a constant dripfeed of positivity within the game. Allowing the unfriendly media to trash the game about a catering deal rather than the brilliant job SL did putting a great season on is challenging and highlights the issue we have, but the team at SLE need to manage that. 

We need a constant stream of positive elements, win after win, at the moment we are allowing the naysayers inside and outside of the game to control the narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.