Toulouse Olympique Update

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

That depends - is it a council-owned facility? Will both teams have long term leases? Or will TO be there on a year-by-year basis and potentially be told to sling their hook at a moment's notice?

Almost 124 years of history suggests we must always be guarded in our dealings with the other code.

It's owned by Stade Toulouse.

[nadera78]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's owned by Stade Toulouse.

So what are TO getting out of this? Sounds like they've been stitched up.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

So what are TO getting out of this? Sounds like they've been stitched up.

My take is that having been stitched up by the council/local planning authority, they've gone for the best deal they could.

Plus if the new TV deal expands SL to 14 it puts TO in a vastly superior position to where they are now to make a push/get a license. 

Hopefully some of the expanded parts of the ground will be in Blue and White rather than the Rouge et Noir of Stade Toulousain.

[audois]

On 27/06/2019 at 15:35, nadera78 said:

Just to clarify - the money that had been earmarked for State des Minimes is now being used to upgrade the union stadium, which TO will be playing out of.

So what do TO get, apart from being at permanent risk of being asked to move out by the rahrahs? Especially if a new Chair takes over.

At absolute minimum you'd be asking the council to upgrade Minimes to a state of the art training facility for TO and it's junior sections. Is anything like this being done?

There is always a risk. I like to think though Chairman Bernard Sarrazain is cluded-up and savvy - maybe he feels this is a golden opportunity. ST is huge and iconic. All year round rugby. The treize have played cup finals and internationals there. The Dragons too. The hope would be that the present anticipared set-up is favourable for TO to be promoted to Superleague immediately if invited/earned unlike when the Dragons had to wait for Brutus to re-developed back in 2005. Would it not at least give TO the chance to get established?

[The Parksider]

On 27/06/2019 at 18:51, Tommygilf said:

If the new TV deal expands SL to 14 it puts TO in a vastly superior position to where they are now to make a push/get a license. 

Why would the new TV deal end up extending Superleague to 14 clubs when SKY have already warned Superleague not to expect anywhere near the same level of money? Given the top ten clubs are already picking off the best players at Salford and London for next year it's clear there are only 10 fully viable SL quality clubs at the moment so hopefully Toulouse who Superleague want, can make that 11, but we are scrubbing around to find another Championship  club would be able to come in and compete 2021, albeit Leigh may well invest in promotion next season, which Beaumont has said he will do, but simply keeping SL at 12 solvent clubs will not be that easy.....that's the reality.......

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Why would the new TV deal end up extending Superleague to 14 clubs when SKY have already warned Superleague not to expect anywhere near the same level of money?

Go on, give us the link to this ground breaking revelation...

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

Why would the new TV deal end up extending Superleague to 14 clubs when SKY have already warned Superleague not to expect anywhere near the same level of money? Given the top ten clubs are already picking off the best players at Salford and London for next year it's clear there are only 10 fully viable SL quality clubs at the moment so hopefully Toulouse who Superleague want, can make that 11, but we are scrubbing around to find another Championship  club would be able to come in and compete 2021, albeit Leigh may well invest in promotion next season, which Beaumont has said he will do, but simply keeping SL at 12 solvent clubs will not be that easy.....that's the reality.......

On a number of occassions the upping of the league to 14 teams has been discussed. Firstly in response to negating the need for loop fixtures - which Wakefield's chairman said were necessary for his club as they had to play minimum 13 home league games a season financially. Secondly, in response to SL coming out saying that it is happy to have 3 overseas side in the League. From what I understand that is because the current English SL clubs see Toronto and Tolouse as 'free additions' who will not take from the central funding. All I've seen regarding the TV monies is speculation. FWIW, my personal belief is that we will get less out of Sky, but equally I think they won't have exclusivity anymore either if that is the case.

Also, considering there is only 8 points between 12th and 4th currently it would be hard to argue there are a 'standout 10 clubs'. To maintain a SL place some pundits are suggesting 20 points plus might be required. The gap has never been closer.

[The Parksider]

13 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Go on, give us the link to this ground breaking revelation...

Who is "us"? Are you in a gang or something? When did you last give a link to any of your fantasies?

Right under your nose HKR got relegated in 2016 which is a fact and that is what triggered the first talks of going to 14  clubs, to get HKR back into Superleague in case they didn't win the MPG.  NOT TO ACCOMMODATE OVERSEAS CLUBS. Superleague clubs met to consider this proposal but straight away they decided 14 clubs was too many for the restricted size of the quality player pool. Go and look it up yourself for once.

The event was memorable because once they ruled out going to 14 they then considered going to 13 clubs and again you can look this up - but given you are an RL fan in Hull surely you can remember this? I have just re-read the link and it's a ridiculous proposal, but it shows how Superleague will not be governed by the bounce of the ball. Now SL chairmen are fully in charge of who is in Supereague it looks clear they ain't going to let HKR or Leeds go down and as for their Mate Ken Davey at Fartown why not look it up - they were saved from relegation year on year.

In the end  SL decided to leave it and as usual it was Koukash who could not resist opening his mouth, and he said they left it at 12 because "where would you find another 30 quality professionals from for another club". Go look it up you lazy man......

12 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

On a number of occassions the upping of the league to 14 teams has been discussed. Firstly in response to negating the need for loop fixtures - which Wakefield's chairman said were necessary for his club as they had to play minimum 13 home league games a season financially. Secondly, in response to SL coming out saying that it is happy to have 3 overseas side in the League. From what I understand that is because the current English SL clubs see Toronto and Tolouse as 'free additions' who will not take from the central funding. All I've seen regarding the TV monies is speculation. FWIW, my personal belief is that we will get less out of Sky, but equally I think they won't have exclusivity anymore either if that is the case.

Also, considering there is only 8 points between 12th and 4th currently it would be hard to argue there are a 'standout 10 clubs'. To maintain a SL place some pundits are suggesting 20 points plus might be required. The gap has never been closer.

It's a spirited Reply Tommy, at least you look it up. I read the musings that they could in theory let 3 overseas clubs in, but they had to have significant "English" content to underpin the SKY deal. It was a few weeks later that McManus said "you can't change the rules of the competition to suit one club" meaning Toronto, so if we did go to 14 who would you bring in as well as Toulouse?

You could consider Bradford and Widnes - both still run valuable academies, but neither has the money to pay for a full Superleague squad, and this is my point neither do Salford or London Broncos, hence the other Superleague clubs are able to pick their bones dry which is a very significant event happening now the transfer season is open. If Leeds went down and keep all their players how are Salford and London going to compete with thinner squads of lesser players?? I seriously do put it to you that it's very clear there aren't the players to go to 14 and there isn't the will to make Toronto one of the 14.

As for the overseas clubs not taking SKY money, this isn't the point. The point is if they are rich they take players from the SL player pool without adding anyone to it - so do Toronto and TO if they did come in with money  also pick the bones out of London and Salford as well??. We only have nine viable English SL clubs and they are Caddick, McManus, Hudgell, Pearson, Davey, Lenegan, Moran, Carter and Fulton, and if Beaumont invested again that would be ten. These guys put the big money in, these guys control SL these guys (Beaumont apart) develop the players.

Who they let in and how many is clearly up to them but they ain't going to allow "Free additions" who just buy up the better players from under their noses without contributing anyone, hence Toulouse have worked their socks off on this issue..

As for the TV deal the main journalist who summed up the significant rumours and whispers over the TV deal was Phil Caplan and he made it very clear that we ain't getting £200M again, something that seems to be unanimous across the comments from both owners and other journalists. It's gone past "speculation" and the strength of this point was based on our SKY partners giving us plenty of fair warning to prepare for that drop. Going to 14 clubs is a ridiculous way to prepare for it

You can have as many "free additions"  as you want who take nothing from the TV deal, but it's the squads of quality players they take from the English player pool without developing any themselves that will damage the game. I take your point on "close games" but we dropped to 12 and nearly 10 because we wanted "quality" games first and foremost.

Also consider last years proposal from the SL clubs of an SL1 containing 10 clubs. Not 14, surely Wellsy can easily look that one up?

[Manxmanc]

On Back Chat this week, it was interesting to note Ralph Rimmer's comment in referring to promotion to Super League:

“We may have one or two overseas clubs coming up…hopefully”

This does not sound as if the game's regulatory body is discouraging Toulouse or Toronto's promotion aspirations.

As far as club numbers in the respective leagues, he mentions that any changes would be on the back of the next broadcast deal.

 

 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

It's a spirited Reply Tommy, at least you look it up. I read the musings that they could in theory let 3 overseas clubs in, but they had to have significant "English" content to underpin the SKY deal. It was a few weeks later that McManus said "you can't change the rules of the competition to suit one club" meaning Toronto, so if we did go to 14 who would you bring in as well as Toulouse?

You could consider Bradford and Widnes - both still run valuable academies, but neither has the money to pay for a full Superleague squad, and this is my point neither do Salford or London Broncos, hence the other Superleague clubs are able to pick their bones dry which is a very significant event happening now the transfer season is open. If Leeds went down and keep all their players how are Salford and London going to compete with thinner squads of lesser players?? I seriously do put it to you that it's very clear there aren't the players to go to 14 and there isn't the will to make Toronto one of the 14.

That point is blurred by those English clubs not paying to the already low cap though is it not? If a Toronto or Tolouse came in with no cost to the SL and did spend to cap, perhaps the drain to the NRL and RU could be abated somewhat - I also think what is clear from Salford (who have had to be creative in their spending) and London (who likewise have had to be creative but also have relied on the core of a championship team who lost perhaps their best player in Sammut) is that SL clubs often struggle to look beyond the end of their noses or the NRL agent for players.

Regan Grace can't be the only talented player in the whole of Wales for a generation surely?

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

We only have nine viable English SL clubs and they are Caddick, McManus, Hudgell, Pearson, Davey, Lenegan, Moran, Carter and Fulton, and if Beaumont invested again that would be ten. These guys put the big money in, these guys control SL these guys (Beaumont apart) develop the players.

That's not entirely true though is it. We have already seen Carter say he can't run Wakefield on lower than 13 home games a season. That means in anything less than a 14 team league or a system we currently have now with imbalanced and generally unliked loop fixtures they aren't viable. Perhaps that stands for a number of other clubs too.

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

As for the TV deal the main journalist who summed up the significant rumours and whispers over the TV deal was Phil Caplan and he made it very clear that we ain't getting £200M again, something that seems to be unanimous across the comments from both owners and other journalists. It's gone past "speculation" and the strength of this point was based on our SKY partners giving us plenty of fair warning to prepare for that drop. Going to 14 clubs is a ridiculous way to prepare for it

Then like I said I don't expect Sky to get the exclusivity it has enjoyed for the past 24 years. Whether that means another significant paying contract with BT or even Premier who have upped their game massively having got the Pro14 I'm not sure. Perhaps SL will look at FTA such as the Beeb or, the recently relocated to Leeds, Channel 4. I think for the first time in Super League's history we're going to see a diversification. With potentially 2 French teams too I would hope the broadcasting potential of that is grown too.

A move to 14 would be a move precisely to entice broadcasters.

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

You can have as many "free additions"  as you want who take nothing from the TV deal, but it's the squads of quality players they take from the English player pool without developing any themselves that will damage the game. I take your point on "close games" but we dropped to 12 and nearly 10 because we wanted "quality" games first and foremost.

Also consider last years proposal from the SL clubs of an SL1 containing 10 clubs. Not 14, surely Wellsy can easily look that one up? 

You just answered your own question there, everyone needs to look outside the current English player pool - thats true whether there are 3 non-English teams in the league or not as the admittedly failed Hull merger and closing of Leigh and Salford's academies shows.

The 10 team idea was supported most vocally by Ken Davey, perhaps because he personally funds his club as a percentage far more than anyone else. It was roundly canned. Clubs like Wakefield couldn't survive on that many games a season proffessionally, and clubs like Saints, Wigan, Leeds and the Hull teams didn't want to overplay eachother and thus dilute the product in their eyes.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Who is "us"? Are you in a gang or something? When did you last give a link to any of your fantasies?

The "us" is the other members of the forum. That seemed fairly obvious, but given the level of comprehension you've shown, I can understand it needed explaining.

As for the rest, well you've shown - as usual - you cannot provide a link for your assertion ("SKY have already warned Superleague not to expect anywhere near the same level of money"). All you've done is show me past events with a strange spin on them about something completely irrelevant (deflection tactics, not falling for it).

Where is this link to Sky warning us not to expect anywhere near the same level of money? Who said it? You made the claim, you need to back it up. The burden of proof is with you, not me.

[Omott91]

21 hours ago, Manxmanc said:

On Back Chat this week, it was interesting to note Ralph Rimmer's comment in referring to promotion to Super League:

“We may have one or two overseas clubs coming up…hopefully”

This does not sound as if the game's regulatory body is discouraging Toulouse or Toronto's promotion aspirations.

As far as club numbers in the respective leagues, he mentions that any changes would be on the back of the next broadcast deal.

 

 

 

 

Everybody knows that if twp win the championship grand final they will be promoted. Those who have created their own reasons as to why they won't be in super league next year will be getting a rude shock at the end of the year.  

[The Parksider]

On 29/06/2019 at 11:53, Tommygilf said:

That point is blurred by those English clubs not paying to the already low cap though is it not? If a Toronto or Tolouse came in with no cost to the SL and did spend to cap, perhaps the drain to the NRL and RU could be abated somewhat. SL clubs often struggle to look beyond the end of their noses or the NRL agent for players. Regan Grace can't be the only talented player in the whole of Wales for a generation surely? everyone needs to look outside the current English player pool

We have already seen Carter say he can't run Wakefield on lower than 13 home games a season. That means in anything less than a 14 team league or a system we currently have now with imbalanced and generally unliked loop fixtures they aren't viable.  I don't expect Sky to get the exclusivity it has enjoyed for the past 24 years.  I think for the first time in Super League's history we're going to see a diversification. With potentially 2 French teams too I would hope the broadcasting potential of that is grown too. A move to 14 would be a move precisely to entice broadcasters.

I don't see that TO and TWP coming in and spending full cap can "abate the drain to the NRL and RU" when those games have simply got much higher caps themselves, it's a poor point with respect and even worse is the idea that because one Welsh lad managed to land a contract at Saints and become a star there must be a queue following him. Around 1970 a lad called Paul Grimes came down from Newcastle to make a great success of himself at Leigh, but the clubs didn't send scouts to the North East because they didn't play the game there.

But they DO play in in the south west and Wales and all SL clubs have sent scouts there and signed kids from there for their academies and had tie ups with clubs down there so again the evidence is that that clubs are looking everywhere they can for players, and are encouraged to do so by overseas quotas and government visa laws that promote home grown talent. 

On the 14 team league you miss that we had such a league from 2009 to 2014 when problems with a declining player pool led to some very poor teams being put out by Bulls, Trinity and London and we dropped to 12 and nearly 10 then, but you have a point that 10 may be too few....But not a point as regards the loop fixtures. A third Wigan.v. Saints, Leeds.v.Bradford or Hull.v.HKR  would be preferable to any TWP.v.TO  or Ottawa.v. Catalans because the former are massive TV games, always good for big attendances and TV audiences, and it is those clubs whose fans including armchair fans buy the SKY subs and underpin the TV deal. 

With respect what your trying to do like most who argue the American dream is justify what you personally want to see which is a league which is spread overseas, and that is what I would not be against at all in theory. In practice it would damage the game here if we relegated English clubs for it (which is why people now argue for a bigger league) I am afraid.  The SL bosses are clear and correct that expansion abroad and a bigger League needs to be backed by both expansion of the player pool and TV contracts. That's all they simply ask for. That's what McManus suggested Toulouse could do.

This is fair enough surely? 

On 29/06/2019 at 15:12, scotchy1 said:

absolutely moronic.

Hey! steady on. You and your "like this" pals are between you responsible for "Perth (western Australia) RLFC" entering an SL "world league", a "Marketing guru" being employed to send crowds rocketing, and some real howlers from the past like Sheffield running an academy in the Midlands, and four Championship clubs being formed at each of the compass points in London to back Broncos/Quins....Oh and Scotchy - what price your idea the other year Watkins should have been secured on a £500K p.a. contract and promoted as a superstar thus selling enough Watkins shirts to pay the extra salary!!

Given nobody has ever been interested in paying anything for RL on pay TV, let alone £Millions except SKY this last quarter of a century, the idea that we can play some sort of cagey game where we don't reveal our hand and pretend bigger deals are lined up elsewhere is laughable. The SL clubs and SKY will know now what the reality is but you lads clearly don't do reality.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Given nobody has ever been interested in paying anything for RL on pay TV, let alone £Millions except SKY this last quarter of a century, the idea that we can play some sort of cagey game where we don't reveal our hand and pretend bigger deals are lined up elsewhere is laughable. The SL clubs and SKY will know now what the reality is but you lads clearly don't do reality.

Translation - "I don't actually have a source that suggests Sky have warned SL not to expect the same amount of money next time around; it was a complete guess based on my limited comprehension of news reports."

Nothing wrong with having it as an opinion. Many believe Sky won't offer the same next deal. Many believe they'll offer more. But lie and pretend you know when you are guessing. It makes you dishonest.

At least the lie has now been put to bed.

[Man of Kent]

“99.9% chance” Toulouse will groundshare at Ernest Wallon next season regardless of which division they are in, according to their CEO in League Express 

[Henson Park Old Firm]

48 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

“99.9% chance” Toulouse will groundshare at Ernest Wallon next season regardless of which division they are in, according to their CEO in League Express 

Are there any benefits financially moving there?

[Man of Kent]

11 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

Are there any benefits financially moving there?

The City is paying for it (instead of upgrading the stadium TO wanted to use) and as their existing ground isn’t up to Super League standards then they don’t appear to have much choice if they want to realise their ambitions.

They will use their current ground as training base/reserves/juniors.

[The Daddy]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The City is paying for it (instead of upgrading the stadium TO wanted to use) and as their existing ground isn’t up to Super League standards then they don’t appear to have much choice if they want to realise their ambitions.

They will use their current ground as training base/reserves/juniors.

I think Colomiers would've been a better bet. It's a nice little boutique stadium with the right capacity which TO could easily fill. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

On 21/07/2019 at 23:14, The Daddy said:

I think Colomiers would've been a better bet. It's a nice little boutique stadium with the right capacity which TO could easily fill. 

Can't say I agree. Rugby League games have always been well attended at Stade Ernest Wallon. By far a better, more visible ground for them.

I wonder what the deal is if the Council are paying for it? Who gets the cut of money for what? Can they make money is the main question I guess.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 29/06/2019 at 15:12, scotchy1 said:

The idea that sky would warn us of their negotiation strategy before those negotiations started is absolutely moronic.

Barney Francis and Rob Webster wouldnt get where they have got by telling their competitors, years ahead of time, what price they need to beat

I'd be happy if BT came in.... I could ditch Sky then and enjoy year round rugby cheaper

[audois]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Can't say I agree. Rugby League games have always been well attended at Stade Ernest Wallon. By far a better, more visible ground for them.

I wonder what the deal is if the Council are paying for it? Who gets the cut of money for what? Can they make money is the main question I guess.

I think the City Council were looking at €7m originally to re-develop their old Minimes Stadium.  The figure now banded about I understand is €4m to enable TO to relocate to Stade Ernest Wallon. I don't now how match the new hybrid pitch will cost. The City Council are also making it possible for TO to return to Minimes next year to use that as their training base. There is still one main stand there I think but the other one and club house were demolished.

[Heritage XIII]

10 hours ago, audois said:

... I think but the other one and club house were demolished.

How convenient if true, the council allowed demolishing of facilities then decided to can the re building of Minimes! Destroy a nice little ground & a club house that takes away income. Rugby league certainly has many roadblocks in France.