OPINION
Sponsorships are hard to come by in rugby league.
When you get a good one, you'll do just about everything to hold onto them.
Most sponsors are happy to sit at arm's length and let administrators administrate, coaches coach and players play.
As long as their parking spot at the ground is secure, the corporate box doesn't run out of grog and there are no off-field dramas, the sponsor is not seen and heard too often.
Then there are the likes of Arthur Laundy, the billionaire pub baron whose hotel group is pumping millions into the Canterbury Bulldogs.
“I intend to become very involved,” Laundy declared when he was confirmed as the club's major sponsor last year.
And he's been true to his word.
In just over 12 months, Laundy has threatened to withdraw his sponsorship over a boardroom skirmish, labelled the Panthers 'selfish" for not releasing Matt Burton to the Dogs early and involved himself in player recruitment.
How much influence should you allow a sponsor just because he's helping pay the bills?
Where does a sponsor's influence start and end?
The bosses at Canterbury might want to ask themselves this question after Laundy launched into the club for sacking Adam Elliott.
Laundy told the Daily Telegraph's Phil Rothfield: "I've told the club I'm extremely disappointed. I don't like kicking a person when they're down."
Canterbury won three games in 2021. It was one of the worse performances by a club in the NRL era.
Trent Barrett is fighting for his coaching life and knows he will be gone if the blue and whites don't at least threaten the top eight next year.
They are desperately trying to turn their fortunes around, picking up some key player signings and appointing the astute Phil Gould as general manager.
The Dogs have identified discipline – on and off the field – as one of the key ingredients to the planned revival and are demanding buy-in from the players.
Elliott's impromptu rendezvous with Millie Boyle in cubicle three at the White Rhino is not what they’re looking for.
This was a third alcohol-related strike against Elliott and he simply had to go otherwise Canterbury's cultural re-build is founded on sand.
Some are calling it a "convenience sacking" to free up salary cap money, but why give your bosses the chance to give you the bullet when your rap sheet is so bad?
Laundy argued Elliott deserved a fourth chance, saying the forward's indiscretions were more stupid than criminal.
Gus might want to remind Laundy that while his financial support is appreciated, bagging the club publicly is not.
