Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

TheReaper

Coach
  • Content Count

    850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

810 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

3,464 profile views
  1. Like I said in other threads, for now calling Parky on his made up "facts" is entertaining to me. I'll eventually get bored or decide it's not worth it.
  2. Sure, happy to. I don't disagree with any of that. Like you say, "irrelevant", really about all the numbers. My bottom line is that there is no debt, and that there is nothing remarkable about a startup being in the red. Now, @The Parksider?
  3. Sure, you could get pretty close in expenditures. Now, add ticket income, concession income, sponsorship, merch, etc. Without knowing those numbers, it's all hypothetical, but let's assume the income doesn't cover the expenses so far. We're now at a negative profit, or a loss. That still isn't debt. Debt implies an obligation to repay. We don't know, and have no proof, of what DA's and his other partners' financial arrangements are, are startup or today. Perhaps it was $20 million startup fund and they haven't gone through half of it yet. Perhaps (more likely) they provide ongoing cash injections as needed. This happened at least once. But, unless someone has proof otherwise, there is no indication of debt. EVERY startup requires investment. It's the "rule" , not the "exception" , that almost every business will spend money and be negative while getting established, until profits make up for start up costs. Most investments are made with the acceptance that they could be lost, and not repaid. Unless proof is provided, there is no reason to believe that TWP is different from any other startup, with the owners understanding the risks of their investment. When the startup in question is a professional sports team, figures in the millions, or even tens of millions, are perfectly normal. Making a loss as a start-up is not of itself a negative point when considering the merits of TWP.
  4. Parksider, I'm going to ask you direct questions, in order to provide the debate you so cherish. 1. Could you please provide your source for this number? I've seen you post it more than once, so you must have one. 2. Is it "grown up" to repeatedly demand debate, but then ignore me when I've civilly engaged you here, here, and here? Just a general wondering here, but why would anyone give that to you for free? I'll leave it at 2 direct questions, since as demonstrated you seem to have problems with replying to more than that, despite clearly no being averse to typing long posts.
  5. Have to agree with all that. SSE spent too much time talking too early in the process. I still have hope it'll get done but we all know what a dragged out fight these stadium projects can. Aside from that, Toronto needs to have consistent winning seasons, and BC needs a new owner. I think a business model that allows attendances of 15-20k to be profitable, similar to English rugby, would mean 2-4 more cities to join the league. Smaller, broader geographical spread would result in more total fans.
  6. But there never really was 4 (not 5) clubs worth of guys when there were 4 clubs in the competition. Numbers were always short with anybody available on the sideline wanting more game time throwing on a jersey to make up the numbers. So I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between really stretching for 4 clubs or having 2 solid ones. Also, your last statement is awfully short sighted. You need to look at the reasons that RU is going through a decline in numbers. The biggest reasons are decline is sports participation overall, increased concerns about head injuries in contact sports, and not a huge future potential compared to the mainstream sports. None of those factors are good things for RL.
  7. No, but the traditional fans of the heartland clubs will reject them for replacing teams
  8. Right, I knew I was missing something, was trying to come up with OHL.
  9. I'm still not sure what to make of the Argos situation. IMO they need their own president, sharing one with TFC will never see them get the attention they need. I thought MLSE would be seeming to be putting a bit more effort in. Not saying they aren't, and (as Bell/Kilmer) they did go for big splash marketing in 2016, but they didn't sustain that. They now seem to going for "slow and steady" but perhaps too slow now. Not sure what they're waiting for. The league overall seems to be looking up the Als rumoured to have a new ownership deal done in the next week, and hopefully BC in the offseason. They really just need to build a consistently winning team. Winning Grey cups on .500 seasons followed by immediate returns to sucking will do nothing. I don't live in Toronto, and can't stand the endless hockey/Raptors talk or most sports media, so I don't have the best take on what's what in the Toronto sports scene, but from here in Hamilton the hierarchy seems to be: 1a/1b Leafs/Raptors. Hockey is still king but the Raptors winning have levelled it for now. Sick of hearing about both already. 3 Jays. Down year but I still hear more about them than TFC. 4 TFC, and it's been pretty clear for a while. Don't see them taking #3 unless they go on a sustained winning period along with the BJ's being terrible for a number of years (ie not likely). #5 or #6 Indeed...... to the rest of the country it's probably still the Argos, since they actually visit the rest of the country. Argos still have half a million people watching them every week, even if a lot are opposition fans. Although by all accounts the GTA is still a strong TV market. Within the city of Toronto it may be a different story in terms of what's cool. I'd almost call it a tie, but the difference of TWP being on the upswing and Argos trending down, the edge goes to TWP. #7 Toronto Rock, i think they're reasonably popular #8 York9 #9 Arrows (can't be far off from York9 but CPL is more widely known)
  10. He may equally have not spent if another English owner appeared to be significantly out spending him. The location of the club has little bearing on that. So, even if one considers that a detriment to the game, the source of that detriment is higher-spending clubs, not foreign clubs. Not that I believe it is a detriment because more players are earning more money, because the additional money spent by the owner of Leigh without Toronto would not be greater than the amount spent by Toronto plus what Leigh DID spend. Also, without some (probably old and not linked to) proof,I don't actually believe you that the the owner of Leigh actually spent less than he would have specifically because of Toronto. I believe it's been demonstrated that the average attendance of Toronto games at the other clubs was higher than the average without Toronto. Therefore, it is more revenue to the other clubs. Generated by TWP. Revenue us not the same as profit. I think it's quite clear that TWP DOES bring in far more revenue than many other clubs. The fact that they spend more is their own decision as a business, and not unexpected as they are still a start-up new business spending what they need to to get established. It does if it allows them to train and study rugby full time rather than have another job to worry about. And it does if the same money paying them higher salaries, also pays for better coaching, training facilities, nutrition, recovery, game analysis, etc. I'm sure they'll take "what you would love" into consideration....
  11. London was going to be relegated regardless of who went up.
  12. I"m having fun for now I'll eventually get bored but he makes it so easy.
  13. Because you half-assed addressed/dismissed a different point of view one one aspect with more regurgitation of old quotes, and completely ignored anything you don't have a good response for. Then once again tried to accuse someone of not engaging again. Come on now, you're not shy of writing long posts. There are some direct questions for you in there. I called on you to back of a statement. Lets have this debate or proper discussion you demand.
  14. That's your second post in this thread without replying to mine. Would love to address both of them but you haven't done the same. Wouldn't be avoiding debate, would you?
  15. Reduced emissions per capita by filling up flights that are running anyway. Doesn't help the critical global shortage of excuses for the haters to use.
×
×
  • Create New...