News Last drinks: The tough conversation Gus Gould needs to have

GrogDog

bad attitude
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
9,398
Reaction score
10,139
He's a sponsor. Let him talk. What is the big deal?

The bloke can be very influential. Why would you want to shut him up? Might be controversial but he's a Bulldogs fan so lets see if he can help push us into good positions.

I don't believe he's like our former chairman who wanted to be Politis but rather than do things to help the club was only interested in their own pockets.
Bagging the club (Or atleast publicly disagreeing) for idiot when we desperately need to start a culture is bad form. Have his opinion, express it to the club but not to media.

He needs to be behind the scenes and let the club move us forward. I think he said himself right at the start that he wanted a Politis type involvement from memory....
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,581
Truth?
That he deserves 4th chance?
He is an idiot

I hope he withdrawal the sponsorship and save Elliot as a bar man
Yes, he deserves a fourth chance, given the first offence was the club's fault, the second wasn't a breach of contractual obligations and the third was such a minor incident. Uncle Arthur can multitask. He can look out for both the club and the fine young man he has befriended.
 

albatross

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
2,232
Reaction score
2,593
Bagging the club (Or atleast publicly disagreeing) for idiot when we desperately need to start a culture is bad form. Have his opinion, express it to the club but not to media.

He needs to be behind the scenes and let the club move us forward. I think he said himself right at the start that he wanted a Politis type involvement from memory....
I agree. Politis started as a sponsor, so he's picked a good role-model, but I can't remember Politis mouthing off publicly about the Roosters.

Outside of football dept business, I don't think a major sponsor has to be limited in how they work with or help the club, especially if they're a big supporter of the club and on the same page as the board and CEO's, but I'm not sure where Laundy's at. He could've just given Elliott a little public cuddle without bagging the club if he felt that bad. Still, I guess he can say what he wants and he or the club can decide to part ways if either gets too unhappy about the other.
 

Bazildog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
20,715
Some of you blokes on the Kennel must be super connected or possibly actual board members or staff in disguise... :tearsofjoy: . Who here actually knows for a fact what he is contributing financially ( and I mean everything above and below the table). And while you are at it, how do you know that the club/board have not asked or encouraged him to be involved directly with some of the clubs recruitments. Do we know for a fact that Laundy hasn't been asked to make certain statements publicly so that the club is at arms length? Surely if his contribution is so small financially, why would Khoury and Co and now Gould allow him to potentially damage Canterbury with unwanted involvement or comment.

Sponsorship is a fancy name for donation. Those that don't actually understand or know how sponsorship works would probably be very surprised to learn that most of the time it would be much easier with greater return to just spend the money on direct media advertising (print, radio tv, online etc. or now these days thru targeted social media) than it is to be a sponsor of something.

Lets say for a guestimated example that Laundy is giving Canterbury $1m a year in sponsorship, what does he get in return. In realty "fuck all".

Exposure? What, for the hotel empire that he has successfully run over 50 years, or for the half a billion dollar deal he did for the 30 odd pubs he leased to Woolworths for the next 20 years, media awareness, business networking, political influence?? He has more than enough clout with his hotel empire to do just about anything he wants to already.

The fact is he gets to watch his logo run around (at the moment on the worst team in the comp,) and some footy players visiting his establishments (which they already did). Yeah, I know there is corporate hospitality and sponsorship activation, ticket allotment, merchandise, player appearance and access, business to business opportunity's, cross over marketing etc. but why would he bother? I can tell you from 1st hand experience with most sponsorship there is usually a personal or emotional connection or a long term plan for something else.

With major corporates that have budgets for sponsorships etc. it normally comes down to the person directly responsible for this spend and what ticks their box. If that person is AFL mad, there is probably not much chance of a league sponsorship etc. and vice a versa. Other times it can be because the company wants to align itself with a particular sport for financial opportunity, but it is never just for the actual sponsorship package benefits like tickets, merchandise, corporate hospitality etc.

Arthurs first passion in league is the Tigers, so I doubt its an emotional attraction..

The return on investment rarely matches let alone exceeds the cost so Arthur must have a long term goal otherwise its a totally useless waste of his time and money to be involved. The goal might be to eventually get on the board (either him or one of his sons) or it might have to do with the potential development of something on the old site at Liverpool or even Belmore, who really knows that isn't in the loop.

Either way Arthur will have a plan and it wont be to just watch a bunch of boof heads run around on a footy field with his name on their jerseys while impressing a few friends in a private corporate suite. More importantly if what he brings to the table is actually a hinderance and does not benefit The Bulldogs, I am sure Khoury/Board/Gould etc. will quickly cut ties and find a better sponsor.
 
Last edited:

kap123

Kennel Established
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,539
I think he just needs to stop publicly commenting on these topics. He is more than entitled to his opinion but he should know that our club is a target of the media.

He along with others have done an awesome job in getting some stability in the club. He has invested in the club because he should believe we are competent, so let the people who are paid and supported to make the decisions do just that.

Laundy also needs to get that we haven't kicked him when he was down on multiple occasions and he continues to fuck up. There comes a point where the club needs to make a statement on what they accept.
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
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.
When did he "launched into the club for sacking Adam Elliott"? He said "I've told the club I'm extremely disappointed. I don't like kicking a person when they're down." I would hardly call that launching into the club.

From my understanding the first strike for Elliott was for mad Monday & the second was for the latest incident & there was no strike for the Lichaa incident. Was there another that I do not know about?
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
Just regarding Adam Elliot, maybe there will be more to come out of yet and he will have something to say.... But at least so far it seems like he's sunk with his ship... Thought it would have been a bit more messy with regards to his sacking but paper talk is there was a mutual decision.... Think there is more to it than we will know, but looks as though accepted his fate....
I think the newspapers will still have their fun with it & probably bring it up around season launch time.
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
Don't think he should have the final say, A opinion yes but that can be dangerous ,I can see it now unless y ou keep him I'll pull my money
He stated an opinion & did not have the final say otherwise Elliott would not have been sacked (i.e. mutually separated).
 

GrogDog

bad attitude
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
9,398
Reaction score
10,139
When did he "launched into the club for sacking Adam Elliott"? He said "I've told the club I'm extremely disappointed. I don't like kicking a person when they're down." I would hardly call that launching into the club.

From my understanding the first strike for Elliott was for mad Monday & the second was for the latest incident & there was no strike for the Lichaa incident. Was there another that I do not know about?
Not sure, Wendog posted awhile back the court transcript from the Mad Monday thing and the judge referred to 2 previous incidents before that? Not sure what they were so it could be 2 or 3 if you include Lichaa thing or even 4 or 5?
 

bullanth

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
1,930
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.
Well put,what mr laundy must understands that prior to him coming on board to sponsor our club,we had negotiated a sponsorship,but they pulled out because of behavioural influences at our club,his protege Elliot being one of them,although his money is welcome,I think on this occasion the club have made the right decision.
 

ih2220

Waterboy
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
76
Reaction score
149
He is trying to be like uncle nick. The difference is, uncle nick actually puts his hands in his pocket and forks out, where as, this guy, just criticises every decision the board makes and complains.

If he is soo worried, why doesn’t he bring out the brown paper bags and actually make a difference
 

bullanth

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
1,930
Laudy is NOT a billionaire and isn't investing millions in the Bulldogs...
Laundy IS a power hungry opportunist...
He is Mr 1 year free & 1 year 1/2 price sponsor !!!
The sooner uncle Arthur follows his friends Anderson Hill and Dunn the better the club will be.
Love it,I used to belong to my local labor party branch,I had quite a few verbal run ins with his son Craig,the sort of guy who thinks his shit is perfume,and his father backing and supporting Adam Elliot it’s really a board matter.
 

w00t

Kennel Addict
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
2,867
If he wants a bigger say in club affairs then put your money and your work where your mouth is.

He wants to be Politis without putting in the money and effort Politis does as well
 

MIR-PROD

Kennel Participant
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
205
Yes, he deserves a fourth chance, given the first offence was the club's fault, the second wasn't a breach of contractual obligations and the third was such a minor incident. Uncle Arthur can multitask. He can look out for both the club and the fine young man he has befriended.
Do u get up in the morning just to come on here and troll?
 

Bob dog

Hectik defence
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
19,372
Reaction score
3,588
Who's telling Gould what to do?
Half the problem since Castle has been too many trying to take the Controls rather than letting things take their natural course. sure Landy wants to put in his say but he's not the boss.
 
Top