Eddie Hearn-Time for the RFL to swallow pride and let him take over,if he is still interested?

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

yes we need to work constantly to improve our income streams in whatever form that may take , it's just good business sense and practice

So why are you moaning about discussing ways of doing that?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

So why are you moaning about discussing ways of doing that?

Because that isn't what the thread has moved onto , it's pretty much discussing why we can no longer sell out Wembley for the CC , and how Barry and Eddie supposedly could 

We all pretty much agree they aren't going to turn round the whole sport , or indeed the individual clubs ( which is why their influence at LO is of interest ) 

More actual real fans in the stadiums will make the TV experience look and feel better , that will then help the event games 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The main T20 season was over before the start of The Hundred. It's been a single round of knock out matches since with Finals day still to come.

So how are the attendances holding up ?

[Adelaide Tiger]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think in reality, it would be very difficult for an agency to just come in and sell out those 30k tickets for a million quid. 

The cheap sales will have been swept up through the clubs and existing customer base. Selling to 30k 'new' customers is likely to be more expensive than that million. This is likely the reason we don't see new tactical marketing from the RFL. 

I am assuming that your use of the word cheap means that most of the ‘cheaper seats’ are sold well in advance of the Final.  If those seats are sold at a proper price reflective of a premier event then what is the issue.  It certainly is a challenge to sell the additional 30-35k to fill Wembley. I have no idea if it is feasible for an external organisation to take this up I am only offering ideas.

But what you appear to be saying in your second paragraph - and apologies if I am wrong - is that it might cost the RFL an extra million to sell those 30-35k seats so that might be why we do not see a different approach.  If that is anywhere near the reason then it speaks volumes of the leadership in the game who would rather see a one third empty stadium rather than try to fill it out.

Look I do not have any agenda against the RFL.  I am just trying to suggest that by linking up with external organisations that have strengths that the RFL may not have should be explored.

[Adelaide Tiger]

14 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You say it's not about giving away margin or equity, only to immediately suggest giving a third party any ticket sales above 60k. That sounds an awful lot like giving away margin and/or equity in a key RFL property - especially when, depending on the clubs involved, evidence suggests that the RFL can sell a decent chunk of tickets 60,001-90,000 by themselves. 

But as @Dave T points out, those tickets are the ones that are the hardest sell and need the biggest push - certainly if you're looking at them as a one-off, year-by-year sales campaign. That's the wrong way to look at it - it's the short-term view. 

My point is that any such view (get someone in on a performance basis) comes from this idea that the problem with the CC Final is one of promotion. It's the hubris of "we have a great product but we need to tell more people about it" that I personally think is misplaced.

Yes, to ticket holders 1-60,000, it is a great product and that's what they're buying, but to an awful lot of people, this isn't a great product - certainly not one that they demanding and falling over themselves to get a ticket for. It's something they might like, but not something they're that fussed about missing out on so simply shouting louder about RL to these people won't make a difference because they don't currently care. This is where you need a long-term plan to identify, engage and adapt the product so that it creates demand from an audience over time - essentially you 'pay it forward' so that you're not paying as much to sell each ticket in future years. Decades of marketing research shows that in the long term, sacrificing some short-term gains for the long-term makes more money overall.  

That is where I think the Hearns are the wrong answer to the wrong problem. We don't need "hype", we need to understand exactly who we're trying to sell both the CC Final and RL as a whole to and adapt it to meet their needs and expectations. That's not something that I think the Hearns can do, or are interested in doing. You can't just say to any marketing agency "here's out event, you're paid on what you sell but by the way, you're not allowed to change it in any way/"; it's a waste of time - especially when the RFL and the clubs don't seem to know what audience they want to attract. 

The point about the Hearns being "event" people is true. When it comes to darts or boxing, they "own" all of the key entities - they own the talent, they own the production and they own the marketing. RL isn't something that allows them to do that - RL is a construct of losely connected entities with their own priorities, own leadership, own shareholders, own commercial challenges and own capabilties. 

This entire issue about worrying what Sky are pressuring us about has come about because the sport hasn't thought about how it builds demand to enhance the TV deal until the last minute. The SL chairmen are scambling around, trying to finish their homework on the day it is due when this whole process should have started on the day the last TV deal was signed. 

It's not "£400k" though. It's £400k as a best case scenario, before costs (eg, media spend, creative and content creation, PR activity, investment in match experience, staff time, etc). I don't think that is going to appeal to any decent agent (certainly not on the level of Matchroom) and, quite frankly, if you're asking an agent to shoulder the risk and a lot of sunk costs, rather than paying them for their time, they're going to want a significant premium for doing so. 

1st para - you are not giving money away if it is money that the RFL is unable to generate. Show me any evidence that shows the RFL in their present guise can sell up to 90k in tickets as you suggest.

Para 2 - just because the RFL cannot, or as DaveT alludes to, may choose not to put money in to sell those last 30k tickets does not mean they are impossible to sell.  I have not said that you should just have a one-off campaign it should be a planned approach that is tweaked every year to keep the message fresh.  

Para 3 - I agree that ‘promotion’ is not the only answer and I agreed with you that a review and plan is required but ‘promotion’ is most certainly part of the answer

Para 4 - totally agree. But anyone can develop a plan but then not have the skills to make it resonate with their intended audience. So to create your long term view - that I support - in the first few years you do need slick, exciting promotion and publicity that is light years beyond what the RFL have delivered so far.  Once you get full houses then the ‘promotion’ can be less expensive.  So that is where my suggestion about linking up with an organisation that specialises in this work is crucial.

Para 5 - unless I have misunderstood this paragraph can you please point out where have I said that the Hearns, or any other such organisation, should be left to undertake, research and create a plan of action?  That is the responsibility of the RFL - assisted by an independent company -  to undertake.  But whatever the RFL produces it certainly needs to be hyped by someone who understands how to do this.

Para 6 - same response as para 5.

Para 7 - I have the same opinion as you 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

1st para - you are not giving money away if it is money that the RFL is unable to generate. Show me any evidence that shows the RFL in their present guise can sell up to 90k in tickets as you suggest.

Para 2 - just because the RFL cannot, or as DaveT alludes to, may choose not to put money in to sell those last 30k tickets does not mean they are impossible to sell.  I have not said that you should just have a one-off campaign it should be a planned approach that is tweaked every year to keep the message fresh.  

Para 3 - I agree that ‘promotion’ is not the only answer and I agreed with you that a review and plan is required but ‘promotion’ is most certainly part of the answer

Para 4 - totally agree. But anyone can develop a plan but then not have the skills to make it resonate with their intended audience. So to create your long term view - that I support - in the first few years you do need slick, exciting promotion and publicity that is light years beyond what the RFL have delivered so far.  Once you get full houses then the ‘promotion’ can be less expensive.  So that is where my suggestion about linking up with an organisation that specialises in this work is crucial.

Para 5 - unless I have misunderstood this paragraph can you please point out where have I said that the Hearns, or any other such organisation, should be left to undertake, research and create a plan of action?  That is the responsibility of the RFL - assisted by an independent company -  to undertake.  But whatever the RFL produces it certainly needs to be hyped by someone who understands how to do this.

Para 6 - same response as para 5.

Para 7 - I have the same opinion as you 

There's a risk we end up repeating ourselves here so I'll sum up that I simply don't believe that a performance model is as attractive as it sounds, for either party, or indeed the right one. 

If a prospect came to me with a proposal that said "you won't get paid a fee, but you'll get to keep anything you sell over 60k tickets", my first reaction will be, "if you're so confident that this is a good deal, why aren't you investing in it yourself?". Anyone who watches shows like Dragons Den knows that investors can see right through someone who is trying to palm of a risky investment onto them, and marketing agencies can spot it too. 

And then by handing over the fruits of any investment to an agent, you then don't benefit from having that revenue to reinvest in future growth. You've handed over the benefit to a third party and then, in all likelihood, you're going back to the same third party to repeat the trick year after year. 

You won't find me defending the track record of the current RFL leadership, or that of most of the clubs, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the sport is going to do this (and if it really wants do so this), do it properly. If it needs expertise, then either hire it in house (and pay them properly - Salford are currently hiring for a Marketing and Comms manager and they want an awful lot for the £25-30k on offer) or pay the experts for their time. This is, and should be, a long term an investment in a sporting event and brand - we're not selling Kirby vacuum cleaners. 

[tiffers]

25 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 If it needs expertise, then either hire it in house (and pay them properly - Salford are currently hiring for a Marketing and Comms manager and they want an awful lot for the £25-30k on offer) or pay the experts for their time.

The job desc is an awful lot for a mere £25-30k...
I appreciate that its a very small team @ SRD, but you will really struggle to get a commercially savvy, experienced marketing manager for that money... They are off the mark entirely with this in my opinion.

The "benefits" package is woeful. 20 days holiday of which 3/4 days have to be taken through Xmas. Seriously!?!? Who worth their salt is going to accept terms like that...

It strikes me that SRD do not value or understand the impact that this role should be having in the business... No wonder we (RL clubs) arent seeing exponential growth in revenues...

Pay someone a bit more money, offer them a fair and reasonable benefits package that is actually beneficial, and you would absolutely reap the rewards of a competent Marketing Manager in the £'s you are counting at the end of the season.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I am assuming that your use of the word cheap means that most of the ‘cheaper seats’ are sold well in advance of the Final.  If those seats are sold at a proper price reflective of a premier event then what is the issue.  It certainly is a challenge to sell the additional 30-35k to fill Wembley. I have no idea if it is feasible for an external organisation to take this up I am only offering ideas.

But what you appear to be saying in your second paragraph - and apologies if I am wrong - is that it might cost the RFL an extra million to sell those 30-35k seats so that might be why we do not see a different approach.  If that is anywhere near the reason then it speaks volumes of the leadership in the game who would rather see a one third empty stadium rather than try to fill it out.

Look I do not have any agenda against the RFL.  I am just trying to suggest that by linking up with external organisations that have strengths that the RFL may not have should be explored.

Sorry no to be clear by cheap I mean cost effective. I believe it is the most expensive tickets that sellout first. 

I mean that the 'free' sales (those 20 to 30k to the two finalists who need no marketing) happen, the RFL also target the existing customers who go every year with a discount - a simple email converts them. And unfortunately that is where it ends, but that cheap activity (a few emails and awareness through owned media - club and rfl websites etc) will sell the bulk of those tickets. 

You then have to start moving into more expensive channels, the RFL use things like radio and media ads, and limited digital advertising, but these things can become expensive quite quickly. At some stage they risk becoming ineffective or too expensive to sell. 

This is where the conversation has to be bigger than simple marketing channels. It needs to be about a culture you have cultivated, it needs to be such a must-see event that it doesn't take much thought on whether you will go etc. 

I think there is definitely a place for external expertise to work alongside the RFL, but tbh, I think that may already be happening, we do use marketing agencies etc. 

[fighting irish]

58 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There's a risk we end up repeating ourselves here so I'll sum up that I simply don't believe that a performance model is as attractive as it sounds, for either party, or indeed the right one. 

If a prospect came to me with a proposal that said "you won't get paid a fee, but you'll get to keep anything you sell over 60k tickets", my first reaction will be, "if you're so confident that this is a good deal, why aren't you investing in it yourself?". Anyone who watches shows like Dragons Den knows that investors can see right through someone who is trying to palm of a risky investment onto them, and marketing agencies can spot it too. 

And then by handing over the fruits of any investment to an agent, you then don't benefit from having that revenue to reinvest in future growth. You've handed over the benefit to a third party and then, in all likelihood, you're going back to the same third party to repeat the trick year after year. 

You won't find me defending the track record of the current RFL leadership, or that of most of the clubs, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the sport is going to do this (and if it really wants do so this), do it properly. If it needs expertise, then either hire it in house (and pay them properly - Salford are currently hiring for a Marketing and Comms manager and they want an awful lot for the £25-30k on offer) or pay the experts for their time. This is, and should be, a long term an investment in a sporting event and brand - we're not selling Kirby vacuum cleaners. 

I just want to make it clear that I wasn't suggesting that the marketing agency shoulder the cost of producing and delivering their programme without payment.

What I'm saying is that that effort should be billed at base cost.

The profit/bonus should come from increased revenues.

It's interesting to me that you only see the scenario (as in your Dragons Den analogy) from the marketing agencies side.

Looking from the clients side, it could be argued that the marketing agency want the client to shoulder all the risk by paying them (including an element of ''salt'') without any reference to whether the marketing campaign is successful or not.

As a Dragon, this would make me very wary indeed.

Any fool can produce a ''marketing campaign'' (we have plenty on here) at huge cost.

What we need and want (as does every business owner) is a marketing campaign that more than pays for itself (ideally ten times over). If not, it's a completely pointless (pure vanity) project.

Being unwilling to accept the kind of offer I'm proposing above, is indicative of an innate and thinly disguised lack of confidence (the marketing agency has) in their ability to run an effective campaign. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, tiffers said:

The job desc is an awful lot for a mere £25-30k...
I appreciate that its a very small team @ SRD, but you will really struggle to get a commercially savvy, experienced marketing manager for that money... They are off the mark entirely with this in my opinion.

The "benefits" package is woeful. 20 days holiday of which 3/4 days have to be taken through Xmas. Seriously!?!? Who worth their salt is going to accept terms like that...

It strikes me that SRD do not value or understand the impact that this role should be having in the business... No wonder we (RL clubs) arent seeing exponential growth in revenues...

Pay someone a bit more money, offer them a fair and reasonable benefits package that is actually beneficial, and you would absolutely reap the rewards of a competent Marketing Manager in the £'s you are counting at the end of the season.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

I must admit, that isn't as bad as I expected from a club like Salford. It also depends on what their marketing team looks like, but where I work we have marketing/comms managers on 30k, and less. 

The holiday demand of using some at Christmas isn't an issue, it's quite common nowadays. 

[Damien]

As the game, i.e RFL, SL and many clubs, cant market itself properly and quite clearly fails to pay enough to get the right people would there be any value to just centralising all of this and using a portion of each clubs funding to pay for it.

There are bound to be huge efficiency savings through removing duplication and it would allow for common standards and templates, a little like the NRL, and a much higher standard of presentation. Such a department could do the whole lot like websites, social media, it could cohesively push specialised rounds like heritage rounds etc and events like Magic, finals and internationals, do player interviews etc. It could also be tasked with pushing content like match reports to all the media outlets and could just churn out news. It would also allow better quality marketing experts to be hired to oversea the whole strategy and could even be outsourced if that would work better.

I'm just spitballing but I can certainly see how it could improve things across the board and allow the game to do things much better.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

As the game, i.e RFL, SL and many clubs, cant market itself properly and quite clearly fails to pay enough to get the right people would there be any value to just centralising all of this and using a portion of each clubs funding to pay for it.

There are bound to be huge efficiency savings through removing duplication and it would allow for common standards and templates, a little like the NRL, and a much higher standard of presentation. Such a department could do the whole lot like websites, social media, it could cohesively push specialised rounds like heritage rounds etc and events like Magic, finals and internationals, do player interviews etc. It could also be tasked with pushing content like match reports to all the media outlets and could just churn out news. It would also allow better quality marketing experts to be hired to oversea the whole strategy and could even be outsourced if that would work better.

I'm just spitballing but I can certainly see how it could improve things across the board and allow the game to do things much better.

This does seem like it started to happen with Elstone tbf, the branding and things like news and teamsheets seemed to be joined up.

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This does seem like it started to happen with Elstone tbf, the branding and things like news and teamsheets seemed to be joined up.

And then some clubs don't use it!

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

This does seem like it started to happen with Elstone tbf, the branding and things like news and teamsheets seemed to be joined up.

Its no where near enough and is still a drop in the ocean. Elstone was certainly on the right track and made progress in this area with the message and TV shows etc, which now seems to have been lost somewhat. Ultimately though Elstone just had another marketing department, largely consisting of staff transferred from the RFL with a little more funding.

I'm talking about centralising everything so Salford wouldn't be recruiting a Marketing manager on 25k a year and 11 other SL clubs doing similar and clubs each having marketing departments of 2/3 lowly paid staff (or whatever they may have). The RFL and SLE also wouldn't have their marketing staff. Centralise it all to allow for much more to be done, allow it to be done more professionally and allow better quality marketing people to be hired to drive the whole thing.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This does seem like it started to happen with Elstone tbf, the branding and things like news and teamsheets seemed to be joined up.

Yep, I do believe Elstone was on the right lines in terms of modernising the look and feel of the comp. 

[iffleyox]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, that isn't as bad as I expected from a club like Salford. It also depends on what their marketing team looks like, but where I work we have marketing/comms managers on 30k, and less. 

The holiday demand of using some at Christmas isn't an issue, it's quite common nowadays. 

yes, but how big's your marketing team? If, as I expect, that person they're looking for is going to be the comms and marketing 'team'* then for £30k you're pretty much setting yourself up for someone who's either a fan, or going to be out of their depth. There's always the third option - someone who wants to use it as a stepping stone in sports marketing, but unless they're a miracle worker Salford isn't going to look great on their CV...

On the other hand, someone keen enough to be a one man band for £30k who *does* then work miracles is exactly what Salford need, so maybe you can't fault their honesty.

 

*which I suspect because if they are paying multiple other people more and less than that to be the rest of the team then what on earth have the team been doing....?

 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

yes, but how big's your marketing team? If, as I expect, that person they're looking for is going to be the comms and marketing 'team'* then for £30k you're pretty much setting yourself up for someone who's either a fan, or going to be out of their depth. There's always the third option - someone who wants to use it as a stepping stone in sports marketing, but unless they're a miracle worker Salford isn't going to look great on their CV...

On the other hand, someone keen enough to be a one man band for £30k who *does* then work miracles is exactly what Salford need, so maybe you can't fault their honesty.

 

*which I suspect because if they are paying multiple other people more and less than that to be the rest of the team then what on earth have the team been doing....?

 

I acknowledged your point in my post, saying it depends what the team looks like. Probably the more important point is what your budget is. 

But I don't think anyone is expecting a marketing genius, and it would undoubtedly be somebody earlier in their career, but there are good people out there who meet that criteria. 

[whatmichaelsays]

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I just want to make it clear that I wasn't suggesting that the marketing agency shoulder the cost of producing and delivering their programme without payment.

What I'm saying is that that effort should be billed at base cost.

The profit/bonus should come from increased revenues.

It's interesting to me that you only see the scenario (as in your Dragons Den analogy) from the marketing agencies side.

Looking from the clients side, it could be argued that the marketing agency want the client to shoulder all the risk by paying them (including an element of ''salt'') without any reference to whether the marketing campaign is successful or not.

As a Dragon, this would make me very wary indeed.

Any fool can produce a ''marketing campaign'' (we have plenty on here) at huge cost.

What we need and want (as does every business owner) is a marketing campaign that more than pays for itself (ideally ten times over). If not, it's a completely pointless (pure vanity) project.

Being unwilling to accept the kind of offer I'm proposing above, is indicative of an innate and thinly disguised lack of confidence (the marketing agency has) in their ability to run an effective campaign. 

I come at it from that agency perspective because that is the perspective I've worked from for the most part (although I have worked on both sides of the divide). But it's not about "shirking" the consequences of what I do or don't deliver. 

Most marketers - and certainly most agencies - have little to no influence on the overall business plan and in some cases, limited visibility of it. They have to work within constraints that, in many cases, are not ideal. I can come up with the best campaign imaginable that triples your website traffic, but if your product is fundamentally lousy or your delivery time is too long, it's going to count for jack all and there's little I can do about it. Yes, we can do our analysis, propose ideas and create strategies, but 99.9% of the time, the final decision rests with the client. It would be the same with RL - anyone can promote an event, but the product is ultimately the RFL's. 

It's also worth mentioning that it isn't in anybody's interest to do a poor job. I want to keep the client, I want a good case study and I want to do the right thing. I'm even happy to work on a performance model, but I also value my time and that needs to be paid for. Are there chancers, snake oil salesmen and cowboys in the industry? Absolutely, but the good significantly outweighs the bad. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I come at it from that agency perspective because that is the perspective I've worked from for the most part (although I have worked on both sides of the divide). But it's not about "shirking" the consequences of what I do or don't deliver.

Now I understand how your experience shaped your reasoning.

For myself I worked as part of a ‘Special Project Team’ within a Local Authority.  The team was tasked with scoping out ideas from the community, developing a strategy/action plan and find the funding and manage the project. We had a budget of zero as the Council was strapped for cash so we had to be creative … which is unusual for a Council team.  We took on whatever that was thrown at us ranging from Town Centre regeneration projects costing millions down to Christmas Light switch ons.  We could only deliver by developing partnerships with organisations such as Regional Development Agencies, Funding bodies, individual Council Depts, external orgs etc. that had the skills, physical resources, contacts and funding that we lacked/needed.

By using this process we delivered many physical projects.  If we just waited for the Council to find the funding then hardly any project would have succeeded. And I see the RFL as being in the same position as the Council that I worked for.

[tiffers]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, that isn't as bad as I expected from a club like Salford. It also depends on what their marketing team looks like, but where I work we have marketing/comms managers on 30k, and less. 

The holiday demand of using some at Christmas isn't an issue, it's quite common nowadays. 

I'm sorry, but the benefits package is absolutely woeful, @Dave T. 20 days holiday is exceptionally poor, then to state you are expected to take 3 or 4 days of that at Xmas is appalling. It certainly doesn't shout that they value their staff.

Their marketing team consists of this post +2 FTE reporting into it. If you want someone to be able to run multiple campaigns, be able to run CRM systems, the website, social channels, be creative, provide analytics for decision making and then also drive strategies for growth, you need to be paying a fair bit more than £30k. The going rate for a marketing manager to specialise in one of those things would be £25-30k in my experience.

If you want someone to take on all of that, and be good at it, you need to be offering a package that is a whole lot better. It strikes me as a long way from commercial reality/striving to push boundaries.

[tiffers]

3 hours ago, iffleyox said:

If, as I expect, that person they're looking for is going to be the comms and marketing 'team'* then for £30k you're pretty much setting yourself up for someone who's either a fan, or going to be out of their depth.

 

 

You're correct. They are looking for someone to be the figurehead of a team of 2 direct reports.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, tiffers said:

I'm sorry, but the benefits package is absolutely woeful, @Dave T. 20 days holiday is exceptionally poor, then to state you are expected to take 3 or 4 days of that at Xmas is appalling. It certainly doesn't shout that they value their staff.

Their marketing team consists of this post +2 FTE reporting into it. If you want someone to be able to run multiple campaigns, be able to run CRM systems, the website, social channels, be creative, provide analytics for decision making and then also drive strategies for growth, you need to be paying a fair bit more than £30k. The going rate for a marketing manager to specialise in one of those things would be £25-30k in my experience.

If you want someone to take on all of that, and be good at it, you need to be offering a package that is a whole lot better. It strikes me as a long way from commercial reality/striving to push boundaries.

I think the title Marketing Manager is probably misleading and the role is a lot more junior. Glassdoor shows that the average pay for a Marketing Manger in Manchester is £37,500, which is obviously considerably more than this role. If Salford are up against that it shows the calibre of person they can expect to get.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, tiffers said:

I'm sorry, but the benefits package is absolutely woeful, @Dave T. 20 days holiday is exceptionally poor, then to state you are expected to take 3 or 4 days of that at Xmas is appalling. It certainly doesn't shout that they value their staff.

Their marketing team consists of this post +2 FTE reporting into it. If you want someone to be able to run multiple campaigns, be able to run CRM systems, the website, social channels, be creative, provide analytics for decision making and then also drive strategies for growth, you need to be paying a fair bit more than £30k. The going rate for a marketing manager to specialise in one of those things would be £25-30k in my experience.

If you want someone to take on all of that, and be good at it, you need to be offering a package that is a whole lot better. It strikes me as a long way from commercial reality/striving to push boundaries.

The holiday allowance is minimum (it'll actually be 28 days Inc BH's, they are underselling it), but that is more and more standard nowadays. I get more than that but have to take 2 weeks over summer. 

It is really standard for places to have some limits on when you can take them. 

On the job ad, we'll tbh it's very ambiguous, they have 2 Directs, but it does state they will provide leadership with the wider team, suggesting more resource in the business. 

There are a lot of acronyms in there, but in reality, a lot of it is described as 'oversee'. 

There is a fair bit in there that I do in my job, and I don't work in marketing. It reads very like the role profiles at many places I have worked at - throw everything on the list, but it ain't necessarily the reality. 

I understand the point you are making, but in reality I'm not sure anybody is expecting big bucks as a marketing manager at a small sports club like Salford, and I don't think paying the team double this would drive a massive increase. 

I would be more interested in what the marketing budget is.