STAGGERING LOSSES

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Poor executive performance is directly linked to a lack of income to pay for increased insurance premiums. Every strategic decision for years has seen the game receive less and less income, whether that is through declining TV deals or the abject failure when it comes to the Challenge Cup final or internationals. The game not generating enough revenue is directly linked to the abject failure of the RFL leadership and it is only right this is questioned.

Whilst I share many of your frustrations, it should be acknowledged that the RFL have in many areas been royally shafted. Whether that is by SLE or by other international governing bodies. 

The RFL (if I remember correctly - and I may not be) had a very long spell of decent financial results and increasing TV deals, and have delivered huge levels of funding for World Cups and grown things like the Tri and Four Nations. 

SLE and the NRL wrestled control from them and we are in a far worse state. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Elstone cost more didn't he and he wasn't employed for years. 

It's just a cost of doing business. 

No idea but if he did that is again a failure in terms of his contract. Unless it was written there is no reason that someone of such a short tenure should have cost more. 

It is also not a cost of doing business. I certainly know that in my line of business executives do not get rewarded for failure with big payouts.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

No idea but if he did that is again a failure in terms of his contract. Unless it was written there is no reason that someone of such a short tenure should have cost more. 

It is also not a cost of doing business. I certainly know that in my line of business executives do not get rewarded for failure with big payouts.

When people are being moved kn, they absolutely do get payouts. 

It's all subjective about success and failure. Both these execs have gone on to decent roles. 

[Damien]

Just now, Dave T said:

When people are being moved kn, they absolutely do get payouts. 

It's all subjective about success and failure. Both these execs have gone on to decent roles. 

You said big payouts. And they absolutely always don't get them. Rimmer failed on what should be every key metric, the key KPIs for a head of RFL should be around income and the TV deal should be fundamental in that. These things should not be subjective, they should be pretty black and white. There is obviously way too much fluff in the job specs in key RFL positions. I've certainly known executives get sacked for better performance than Rimmer has shown. No payout with that.

Neither Rimmer or Wood would have got a similar role to the RFL CEO when they were appointed from within.

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Let's be honest - the bigger story here is the huge increase in insurance costs that make up 75% of this annual loss. Head injuries and potential legal cases are the biggest risk to the game of RL and here we are seeing a very real impact - and in true RL style we focus on being outraged at exec wages and compensation. 

The story is right there - the game may have to change fundamentally due to head injuries.

Meaning in my book that any attack to the head should be an instant red card, until the players and coaches get the message

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Elstone cost more didn't he and he wasn't employed for years. 

It's just a cost of doing business. 

Elstone didn't even cover his wages let alone the staff he had working for him

[The Future is League]

7 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Someone has been building a nice little empire 

 

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just a single person Paul?

We could all guess who it might be and not be far out

[The Future is League]

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

You said big payouts. And they absolutely always don't get them. Rimmer failed on what should be every key metric, the key KPIs for a head of RFL should be around income and the TV deal should be fundamental in that. These things should not be subjective, they should be pretty black and white. There is obviously way too much fluff in the job specs in key RFL positions. I've certainly known executives get sacked for better performance than Rimmer has shown. No payout with that.

Neither Rimmer or Wood would have got a similar role to the RFL CEO when they were appointed from within.

To think now that Rimmer is now being paid to sort out union financial problems beggar's belief and who's paying him?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

You said big payouts. And they absolutely always don't get them. Rimmer failed on what should be every key metric, the key KPIs for a head of RFL should be around income and the TV deal should be fundamental in that. These things should not be subjective, they should be pretty black and white. There is obviously way too much fluff in the job specs in key RFL positions. I've certainly known executives get sacked for better performance than Rimmer has shown. No payout with that.

Neither Rimmer or Wood would have got a similar role to the RFL CEO when they were appointed from within.

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

[OnStrike]

55 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Meaning in my book that any attack to the head should be an instant red card, until the players and coaches get the message

Watched a little bit of Paramatta v North Queensland the other day and huge shoulder to the head was celebrated like a goal. Even after the bunker checked it and sent the player to the bin the commentators were saying if was a great hit etc and the North Queensland captain was giving out to the ref saying it was a 'contact sport'. Definite culture change needed

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

Whilst I think it was a limited internal appointment again, it is important to recognise that the role seems to be significantly more limited in scope than Rimmer, Wood or even Elstone at Super League. It is almost a 2nd tier role now with RL Commercial leading the sport, though of course I would like to still see some real quality in that position.

[ATLANTISMAN]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Whilst I share many of your frustrations, it should be acknowledged that the RFL have in many areas been royally shafted. Whether that is by SLE or by other international governing bodies. 

The RFL (if I remember correctly - and I may not be) had a very long spell of decent financial results and increasing TV deals, and have delivered huge levels of funding for World Cups and grown things like the Tri and Four Nations. 

SLE and the NRL wrestled control from them and we are in a far worse state. 

I think thats fair comment .

The RFL now has limited revenue streams

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

Agreed. Payoffs are a reality, like it or not. And I'd be happy to pay more to the next guy, if they could do a job, but as you say, doesn't look like they searched to hard.

 

[Damien]

40 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

I think thats fair comment .

The RFL now has limited revenue streams

The same as always.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Whilst I think it was a limited internal appointment again, it is important to recognise that the role seems to be significantly more limited in scope than Rimmer, Wood or even Elstone at Super League. It is almost a 2nd tier role now with RL Commercial leading the sport, though of course I would like to still see some real quality in that position.

If I'm honest Tommy, Im not even sure who is in the role now, is it that Sutton bloke? 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, OnStrike said:

Watched a little bit of Paramatta v North Queensland the other day and huge shoulder to the head was celebrated like a goal. Even after the bunker checked it and sent the player to the bin the commentators were saying if was a great hit etc and the North Queensland captain was giving out to the ref saying it was a 'contact sport'. Definite culture change needed

Analysis of RL is just weird. Before tonight's SL game, JJB (IIRC) said that Wigan's red card would have been a great RL tackle ten years ago. It's BS. It was high then just as it is now. The difference is how seriously we treat them, red, yellow, penalty etc. but the analysis is just dumb. 

[Anita Bath]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

Obviously the idea of performance related pay hasnt made it. to the corridors of RFL, otherwise Rimmer would be paying the RFL.

[gingerjon]

Even with performance related pay you'll still get a notice period and a pay off.

That's how contracted full-time employment works.

If you want the RFL exec team to be on gig economy contracts then ... well, good luck with that.

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

If I'm honest Tommy, Im not even sure who is in the role now, is it that Sutton bloke? 

Me neither! I suppose that is the point?

[sweaty craiq]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

Nobody who gets 'sacked' should get any payment, payments are made for fixed term contracts finishing early or whereby there is not enough to sack them and mutual agreement is reached. IMO the RFL had enough to sack him but didnt want to - hence the severance pay or notice pay.

[Spidey]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

Many execs who seemingly get sacked are basically paid off. I don't care much for Rimmer personally, so I won't spend any time defending his performance, but it really is pretty standard to pay people off. 

Personally, if this is what is required to freshen things up and make sure we have the right leadership team then it's money well spent. People don't just get sacked, they get paid off. 

The bigger problem is that they just carried on he conveyor belt of the next bloke in the office getting the job. 

This is generally the case - your last sentence is key here, they've now paid off numerous people in a relatively short period of time - that seems to me that the inherent issues are still there - who actually appoints these people, are they the actual issue? 

[Spidey]

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

Nobody who gets 'sacked' should get any payment, payments are made for fixed term contracts finishing early or whereby there is not enough to sack them and mutual agreement is reached. IMO the RFL had enough to sack him but didnt want to - hence the severance pay or notice pay.

If there hasn't been a disciplinary process in place It would be extremely difficult to sack somebody without the risk of a tribunal and compensation to be paid

[sweaty craiq]

58 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Even with performance related pay you'll still get a notice period and a pay off.

That's how contracted full-time employment works.

If you want the RFL exec team to be on gig economy contracts then ... well, good luck with that.

PRP involves a low basic and huge incentives to succeed, by doing so the parent gains far more than the individual. Sacking means that ie bye bye no sweet heart pay off to go quietly. Should you mutually agree closure then the basic is low so the payment is low with PRP. People with complete confidence in their ability to overachieve prefer the accelerated rewards of PRP as they back themselves, plodders and non achievers prefer the higher basic

[sweaty craiq]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

If there hasn't been a disciplinary process in place It would be extremely difficult to sack somebody without the risk of a tribunal and compensation to be paid

Forgive me but didnt he do something very stupid that could have led to dismissal if the will was there ?

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Forgive me but didnt he do something very stupid that could have led to dismissal if the will was there ?

From all the onlookers point of view yes - but we don't know what disciplinary process was done afterwards (if anything)  They would have to prove it was Gross Misconduct I guess