Relative measures like the 66% aren't very helpful really because they lack context. How did that £8m increase compare to the clubs above us or to clubs like Leicester, West Ham and Southampton?
If a £1 bet returned you £1.66 that's a 66% increase too, but it's also nothing to write home about.
If you have commercial activities overall, then you end up saying about how West Ham have new stadium, Leicester have recent success, they are not comparable situations. 66% was just to highlight stagnant is not an accurate summary. Feel free to pick the bones out of the new deals.
On shirt sponsor, Leicester are getting around £4m a year because it's the owner's brand and old deal. West Ham £8m, Southampton about £6m. But would expect similar or better results from commercial operations at stadiums due to locations and facilities.
Elstone doesn't control every aspect, under his control things tend to run smoothly. Everyone wants a CEO to be a negotiating goliath with corporates, sensitive about ticket and product prices and not sell that sort of tacky stuff. Maybe the best endorsement for him, is he probably used to be more heavily involved in negotiations for players before it became Walsh's remit.
CEO's tend to be unpopular, Brady is on 650k at West Ham, Scholes 750k at Stoke, Peace 1m at West Brom, Levy £2m, Woodward £2.5m. Elstone is on 400k, been at the club a decade, vast improvement on Wyness and if anyone finds a direct problem with him let me know. He's always seemed to solve far more problems than he's caused, seemed a good negotiator and communicator.
When you consider we spent £10m getting rid of Koeman, and similar getting Allardyce, Walsh cost £2m to get from Leicester will likely have incentives and a bigger salary. I really see Elstone as the remaining bit of continuity among senior staff and only one providing value for money. I understand it's all gone to shit, but that's not an issue with marketing, we are shit.