Elstone gone (Merged threads)

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I was always supportive of a 'breaking away' to get away from this culture of clubs always blaming the RFL for any shortcomings. That point still stands, and rather than scurrying back to the old model, the issues should be addressed. 

Long before Elstone offered his resignation we were scurrying back to the old model due to Covid\finance and I said it was disappointing then and its still disappointing now. I've seen enough to show that the split did work and generate the ideas and changes needed to make Super League better. The trouble is they were all minor and cosmetic and for the truly big decisions we need a leader, a vision and strategy and we didn't have this. For big money that is what we should expect and to this day I still don't know what Elstone really stood for.

[dkw]

5 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

There is no point replacing Elstone whilst the role is hamstrung by clubs beset by self interest calling all the shots.

Elstone for all his faults was a glorified puppet,albeit a well paid one.

And so it will continue with the next one, as the clubs put their next stooge up in front of the baying crowd, who will then carry on doing their bidding and continue down the path where the club owners get whats best for them, not the sport as a whole.

[MattSantos]

If one governing body and subsequently, 1 CEO were to take over the whole sport, what would be required to make that happen? Presumably x majority of SL clubs as well as the RFL to agree?

 

 

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

If one governing body and subsequently, 1 CEO were to take over the whole sport, what would be required to make that happen? Presumably x majority of SL clubs as well as the RFL to agree?

 

 

Whilst the current governance setup can be problematic, I do think we need to look at what would be different with a leader who had full control. Whether we like it or not, the clubs do have power, and if a leader is doing stuff that they just don't buy into, then you get breakaways - so a megalomaniac model doesn't really work. Despite the governance structures that we have in place, SL has passed far more controversial stuff than most other top flight UK leagues over the last 25 to 30 years.

This includes, kicking teams out, promoting teams above their level, creating new teams, protecting teams from relegation, refusing promotion to teams, bringing in licensing, introducing S8's, investing in France, staging Magic weekend, introducing Playoffs and GF and so on. It maybe isn't the blocker that we make out and could be a bit of a scapegoat. 

If we look at Elstone's reign, he would possibly have sold 27% of the commercial rights for £60m, rejected TWP at stage 1, and withdrawn all funding for the game outside of SL. Without controls to prevent some of this stuff things could be worse.

I do think there is an exercise required to tidy up the governance around SL and the game overall, and hopefully the last 2 years have shown where that effort needs to be focused.

[MattSantos]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst the current governance setup can be problematic, I do think we need to look at what would be different with a leader who had full control. Whether we like it or not, the clubs do have power, and if a leader is doing stuff that they just don't buy into, then you get breakaways - so a megalomaniac model doesn't really work. Despite the governance structures that we have in place, SL has passed far more controversial stuff than most other top flight UK leagues over the last 25 to 30 years.

This includes, kicking teams out, promoting teams above their level, creating new teams, protecting teams from relegation, refusing promotion to teams, bringing in licensing, introducing S8's, investing in France, staging Magic weekend, introducing Playoffs and GF and so on. It maybe isn't the blocker that we make out and could be a bit of a scapegoat. 

If we look at Elstone's reign, he would possibly have sold 27% of the commercial rights for £60m, rejected TWP at stage 1, and withdrawn all funding for the game outside of SL. Without controls to prevent some of this stuff things could be worse.

I do think there is an exercise required to tidy up the governance around SL and the game overall, and hopefully the last 2 years have shown where that effort needs to be focused.

Isn't this an argument for 1 voice at the top? Or, should i say, 1 impartial to the SL clubs voice and for the betterment of the whole game?

I look at the company i work for. It's massive. A proper giant. It has 1 leader and an agreed strategy developed with the relevant stakeholders feeding into that. We all go away and work on it. If you don't want in, go somewhere else. Simple.

I don't see a difference to how a sport should be run.

[Dave T]

Just now, MattSantos said:

Isn't this an argument for 1 voice at the top? Or, should i say, 1 impartial to the SL clubs voice and for the betterment of the whole game?

I look at the company i work for. It's massive. A proper giant. It has 1 leader and an agreed strategy developed with the relevant stakeholders feeding into that. We all go away and work on it. If you don't want in, go somewhere else. Simple.

I don't see a difference to how a sport should be run.

I support the principle of having a leader who is elected into role to deliver a strategy and is given autonomy to deliver that strategy, but ultimately that strategy would need to fit in with the clubs' visions otherwise they walk en masse and we have another breakaway.

I actually think the change on governance is probably tweaks, to remove the element of clubs voting on relatively minor decisions that just become a distraction. But I'm not sure whether we ever get to a point where a leader can just sell a stake in the game without approval. 

I suppose I'm saying I agree with the principle, I'm just not sure how it actually works in the real world.

[whatmichaelsays]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst the current governance setup can be problematic, I do think we need to look at what would be different with a leader who had full control. Whether we like it or not, the clubs do have power, and if a leader is doing stuff that they just don't buy into, then you get breakaways - so a megalomaniac model doesn't really work. Despite the governance structures that we have in place, SL has passed far more controversial stuff than most other top flight UK leagues over the last 25 to 30 years.

This includes, kicking teams out, promoting teams above their level, creating new teams, protecting teams from relegation, refusing promotion to teams, bringing in licensing, introducing S8's, investing in France, staging Magic weekend, introducing Playoffs and GF and so on. It maybe isn't the blocker that we make out and could be a bit of a scapegoat. 

If we look at Elstone's reign, he would possibly have sold 27% of the commercial rights for £60m, rejected TWP at stage 1, and withdrawn all funding for the game outside of SL. Without controls to prevent some of this stuff things could be worse.

I do think there is an exercise required to tidy up the governance around SL and the game overall, and hopefully the last 2 years have shown where that effort needs to be focused.

I think you're right to point out some of the stuff that has happened under (or in spite of?) the current ownership and voting model. I suppose the issue for me is that, for a lot of those points, you have to ask "for what purpose?". 

Why Super Eights? Why Magic Weekend? Why France? Why marquee players? Why immunity from relegation? Why anything? That's not to say that I don't agree with those initiatives, but the challenge for me is that these decisions all seem to be made in isolation, out of context from each other, without any overall sense of purpose and, perhaps most worringly, without any sense of collective support (it seems to be that every vote recently has split the room and, whilst you don't want to discourage dissenting voices, that can't be good). It's that lack of strategy, vision and purpose that is most crippling. 

Maybe that's why systems and league structures have failed to stand the test of time? Maybe it's why these same discussions about expansion and about growth keep persisting? 

Ideas get floated around here all the time about things like changing structures, changing this or changing that, kicking our Club X to replace them with Club Y but in truth, it's all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At some point, there needs to be a context and a purpose that people can get behind. Frankly, if any idea or suggestion is being put forward, it should at the very least be able to answer a base question - "does this encourage people who don't currently watch or play rugby league to watch or play rugby league?". If it can't say "yes" in answer that question, it's not addressing the real problem. 

That's why I think, going back to the point I made earlier in the thread, Elstone was the wrong man in the wrong job. Super League didn't need an administrator or a salesman - the problems were never about salesmanship or "not negotiating hard enough. The problem was that nobody really seems to know how to take this sport to market in an era that is very, very different to the one many of our administrators and club owners come from. 

[MattSantos]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I support the principle of having a leader who is elected into role to deliver a strategy and is given autonomy to deliver that strategy, but ultimately that strategy would need to fit in with the clubs' visions otherwise they walk en masse and we have another breakaway.

I actually think the change on governance is probably tweaks, to remove the element of clubs voting on relatively minor decisions that just become a distraction. But I'm not sure whether we ever get to a point where a leader can just sell a stake in the game without approval. 

I suppose I'm saying I agree with the principle, I'm just not sure how it actually works in the real world.

Like any other business. The stakeholders appoint a board and a CEO. The SL clubs would be a stakeholder as would the Championship, Amateur set ups etc.

[Dave T]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

I think you're right to point out some of the stuff that has happened under (or in spite of?) the current ownership and voting model. I suppose the issue for me is that, for a lot of those points, you have to ask "for what purpose?". 

Why Super Eights? Why Magic Weekend? Why France? Why marquee players? Why immunity from relegation? Why anything? That's not to say that I don't agree with those initiatives, but the challenge for me is that these decisions all seem to be made in isolation, out of context from each other, without any overall sense of purpose and, perhaps most worringly, without any sense of collective support (it seems to be that every vote recently has split the room and, whilst you don't want to discourage dissenting voices, that can't be good). 

Maybe that's why systems and league structures have failed to stand the test of time? Maybe it's why these same discussions about expansion and about growth keep persisting? 

Ideas get floated around here all the time about things like changing structures, changing this or changing that, kicking our Club X to replace them with Club Y but in truth, it's all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At some point, there needs to be a context and a purpose that people can get behind. Frankly, if any idea or suggestion is being put forward, it should at the very least be able to answer a base question - "does this encourage people who don't currently watch or play rugby league to watch or play rugby league?". If it can't say "yes" in answer that question, it's not addressing the real problem.  

Yes, I think this is why we need to be careful about understanding what the root cause is for this. There is a case to be made that it is actually that strategic vision that is lacking, as you say, to make sure these decisions are not isolated tactical ones - because as we have seen, change absolutely does get voted through, and we have many examples of things being voted in that could be seen as challenging for existing clubs.

I do think there is a governance tidy up required, but maybe there is a bigger piece about how we get the right leader in place, how they are held accountable and what autonomy they have. 

I suppose we need to ask what have we been unable to do because of this governance setup? And I refer to major initiatives rather than some of the little squabbles that are a distraction (that need to be resolved and prevented). People will point to TWP as an example, but I'd argue that Elstone was never a supporter and if he had full control they wouldn't have been in, and the PE deal fell through which he clearly wanted, but most people seem nervous of that too.

[Lowdesert]

With luck, the NRL will buy SL out and take away all these excuses why this won’t work and that won’t work.  

 

[Michael1812]

17 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

I cannot really believe that anybody wanted to keep a bankrupt Toronto in the competition. What kind of mindset works that out?

Toronto didn’t go bankrupt. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Like any other business. The stakeholders appoint a board and a CEO. The SL clubs would be a stakeholder as would the Championship, Amateur set ups etc.

But that isn't massively out of synch with what we have. As soon as some clubs don't like some decisions we end up in politics mode, with leaks, undermining, votes of no confidence and ultimately leaders being dethroned. 

Are there any really good examples of sports league governance that avoid all of these issues?

[Ramon Rojo]

Selling the soul of our game to Sky went well didn't it.

We're currently competing with Netball for Thursday night graveyard slots on Skys bottom of the screen channels.

Even lottery winners wages can't keep someone in the top job.

Meanwhile our non VIP clubs living on rice and beans in the Championship & League 1 sit begging for crumbs in the corner.

The big 'pay for view' Summer Rugby stand in slots for the quiet periods on the Sky platform has ripped the heart and passion out of Rugby League.

Those of us who questioned the longer term future (and enjoyment) of RL instead of the greed ridden cash-now / worry-later strategy take little comfort in todays embarrassing headlines for so called 'Super League'.

Worrying times indeed

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

With luck, the NRL will buy SL out and take away all these excuses why this won’t work and that won’t work.  

 

The first step on that tactic was taken by moving away from the RFL, they were removed as an excuse, who will Lenegan, Moran and McManus blame now?

[Michael1812]

14 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

??

Getting internationals as regular fixtures was Rimmers job.  You do know that dont you?  Who do you think organised the return of GB? 

Neither Rimmer or Elstone orchestrated Toronto to go bust.  There was a pathway for TWP to get promoted.

Toronto didn’t go bust. 

[MattSantos]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that isn't massively out of synch with what we have. As soon as some clubs don't like some decisions we end up in politics mode, with leaks, undermining, votes of no confidence and ultimately leaders being dethroned. 

Are there any really good examples of sports league governance that avoid all of these issues?

Our own sport.. on appearances, the ARL are running it ok.

[Gooleboy]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The first step on that tactic was taken by moving away from the RFL, they were removed as an excuse, who will Lenegan, Moran and McManus blame now?

Have the three Wise Men had anything to say yet?

[Wigan Riversider]

7 minutes ago, Ramon Rojo said:

Selling the soul of our game to Sky went well didn't it.

We're currently competing with Netball for Thursday night graveyard slots on Skys bottom of the screen channels.

Even lottery winners wages can't keep someone in the top job.

Meanwhile our non VIP clubs living on rice and beans in the Championship & League 1 sit begging for crumbs in the corner.

The big 'pay for view' Summer Rugby stand in slots for the quiet periods on the Sky platform has ripped the heart and passion out of Rugby League.

Those of us who questioned the longer term future (and enjoyment) of RL instead of the greed ridden cash-now / worry-later strategy take little comfort in todays embarrassing headlines for so called 'Super League'.

Worrying times indeed

Completely agree 100%

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Have the three Wise Men had anything to say yet?

I recall watching that press conference that they held at the time, and it really worried me. 

I have a lot of respect for Simon Moran, he is good at what he does and he has been a great backer of Warrington Wolves, but I remember a question to him on what he sees as being needed. He started going on about seeing Great Britain play in big games versus the Aussies at Wembley and Old Trafford like they did in the 1990's. It shocked me at how utterly clueless and uninspiring he came across. 

[Oxford]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

who will Lenegan, Moran and McManus blame now?

 

24 minutes ago, Ramon Rojo said:

Selling the soul of our game to Sky went well didn't it.

We shouldn't expect any chairmen/women of our game to be visionaries as they tend to be one of us with a bit of money.

No more should we blame Sky for the ills of the sport which is rooted in the above.

As th old saying goes Too many fans spoil the broth!

Just imagine a group of posters on here win the lotto, and if you imagine significant change taking place because of it, you haven't been reading what people type.

 

[Gooleboy]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I recall watching that press conference that they held at the time, and it really worried me. 

I have a lot of respect for Simon Moran, he is good at what he does and he has been a great backer of Warrington Wolves, but I remember a question to him on what he sees as being needed. He started going on about seeing Great Britain play in big games versus the Aussies at Wembley and Old Trafford like they did in the 1990's. It shocked me at how utterly clueless and uninspiring he came across. 

That Presser they did wasn't very inspiring was it?

[John Rhino]

17 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So you honestly believe he influenced the one club one vote procedure and persuaded some clubs to vote against Toronto do you, if that is the case we really are in big trouble.

There is the problem. Whether he did or not is irrelevant now, the point is he should have influenced the decision. Thats what he was paid to do

If you believe he couldn't we really are in big trouble. 

[Tommygilf]

45 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Like any other business. The stakeholders appoint a board and a CEO. The SL clubs would be a stakeholder as would the Championship, Amateur set ups etc.

No chance sorry. 

The top Super League clubs are so much bigger than the rest, they already have complained about being ran by the lowest common denominator clubs in Super League, let alone the rest of the game.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

That Presser they did wasn't very inspiring was it?

The weird thing about Moran in particular is that his 'ideas' were things that the RFL were in control of. So a big conference about he future of SL was all about RFL internationals.

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

The top Super League clubs are so much bigger than the rest, they already have complained about being ran by the lowest common denominator clubs in Super League, let alone the rest of the game.

Yes it's never their actions and role in the decsion making, and absolutely nothing to do their selfish motives nor the reliance on guaranteed success to run financially.

It's a the smaller clubs fault, not many people know that!