- Dec 16, 2018
- Reaction score
Utility Mate...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.
Best post of the thread!! But no doubt utility will turn 200 page fucking debating the flaws of your thinking and judgement of character!!!Adam sealed his own fate when (if as is reported) the first person he reached out to when his most recent drama erupted was to Laundy. Not his coach. Not the club secretary. It was to Laundy with a grovelling apology to the effect "I have let you down". He should have been apologising to his team mates, to his coach, to the club CEO. Obviously Elliott once again had no understanding where his true loyalties and responsibilities lay. Good riddance.
Nope. As I explained, the first offence was the club’s fault, the Lichaa thing wasn’t an offence and the Toilet incident was very minor…. So it’s like 1.5 offences really. What happened to Elliott was a grave injustice. Are you saying you’d be ok with the club sacking Burton after 1.5 booze related incidents?Utility Mate...
You have been given so many chances ( explanations ) on TK why Elliott needed to be sacked yet you still insist he should have been kept...
You see, you haven't learnt from your mistakes
Burton is allowed 5 booze related incidentsNope. As I explained, the first offence was the club’s fault, the Lichaa thing wasn’t an offence and the Toilet incident was very minor…. So it’s like 1.5 offences really. What happened to Elliott was a grave injustice. Are you saying you’d be ok with the club sacking Burton after 1.5 booze related incidents?
He’s one of the most skilful backrowers in the game. He just hasn’t been properly developed. Like every player in our squad who debuted after 2014. That spiral cut out he threw against the warriors last year still gives me chills. We let go of a really good one.I don't think so. Perhaps a more talented player would have been shown more leniency - but life isn't fair and professional sport even less
Apologising for kissing a girl? I think not. A convenient casualty in the salary cap war. Get a life and grow up your drivellers.Adam sealed his own fate when (if as is reported) the first person he reached out to when his most recent drama erupted was to Laundy. Not his coach. Not the club secretary. It was to Laundy with a grovelling apology to the effect "I have let you down". He should have been apologising to his team mates, to his coach, to the club CEO. Obviously Elliott once again had no understanding where his true loyalties and responsibilities lay. Good riddance.
Yep - no more kissing girls for our players!The way I see it, the club has absolutely made the right call, we’ve drawn a line in the sand and we’re starting to set some standards.
These decisions are also safeguarding their sponsors from negative media and protecting their mutual brands, so, I have no idea why Laundy is having a go at the club for taking a stance on a bloke with an abysmal rap sheet.
I have close connections to 3 of our current sponsors/advertisers, none of whom is Laundy Hotels, and they get very good value for their advertising dollars. They know this because they measure it, regularly during the season, in many different ways. They compare it with other forms of advertising, rated on impact versus spend and high visibility NRL advertising ranks very highly. For example the video broadcasters provide detailed analysis of the time spent during a game where each advertisers’ logo is identifiable by the viewers, also why the ratings of each game is important and obviously on what and when it is broadcast. This is how the value of advertising is allocated to each of the locations on the team gear, front of jumper is x dollars, sleeve is y dollars, etc.Some of you blokes on the Kennel must be super connected or possibly actual board members or staff in disguise... . 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.