Reports suggest Toronto Wolfpack not guaranteed SL place

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, lingard said:

Do you realise what you have just said?   Featherstone have "survived" for since we were thrown out of division one at the onset of this circus and have even managed to redevelop our stadium.  Something our close and "richer" neighbours have not.

Fev Have done good and run strong in the whole of forever, and I'm a Salford fan. Though I don't know how you ended up on this thread, has the excitement of beating Leigh with a beautiful game plan and an excellent performance meant they have to go everywhere? If so I strongly object as that's my job on behalf of expansion and Salford Red devils!

I will repeat for those who are innovationally challenged

"This is one of those moments where we'll see, and it will define, what kind of SL chaimen we have the 1895, 1908, Brian Snape kind or a commitee of Parkies. "

 

 

[TIWIT]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I reckon they've spent most of the year seeking legal advice about the risks of reneging on an agreement made before their little lads club was formed.

They've likely been counselled that to do so, will not only expose the game to world-wide ridicule, it will reveal in glorious technicolor their total lack of integrity and (probably) incur costs and damages so gross it would bankrupt every club in the organisation.

I can't wait to see how it pans out. 

 

You are absolutely correct.

[TIWIT]

2 hours ago, Loup said:

Whoa Nelly ... the story is unfolding that SL clubs will be divvying up the 12th share of central funding if Wolfpack win the playoffs and get accepted: that's an additional £185,000 per SL team ($2 million / 11 clubs). More than enough for each SL club to pay for their own airfare and accommodation to Toronto. That's assuming Super League isn't clever enough to swing its own air sponsorship deal for the benefit of all teams.

You can't have it both ways. You can't stiff Wolfpack for a share of central funding that any other SL team would be entitled to receive, asking them to forfeit $2 million, AND demand that Wolfpack pay fares and accommodation for visiting teams.

Suuuure they can.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

9 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Maybe the same questions could also be asked of the current incumbents? Be some interesting answers there......

As it should be done at all levels of the “professional” game. 

[Manx RL]

6 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

First, we have to assume SLE Ltd ordinary shareholders could get a 7-5 or more vote in favour of not allowing TWP access to SL. (6-6 & the RFL would surely break the tie in favour of TWP)

If we assume this we must then assume that SLE Ltd has a strong legal basis for blocking TWP from SL as to do so without would certainly lead to Legal Action taken against them by TWP.

There are genuine concerns around the Sustainability of TWP's own travel & accommodation costs. (Major Sponsorship Renewal / Replacement needed, to the value of approximately £850,000 per season assuming TWP play 14 Games in the Greater Toronto Area)

If a sponsorship deal isn't done to cover air travel, Argyle is gonna need to stick in the cash up front based on his refusal to pay for anything out of his own pocket except Player pay previously.

Interesting to see that a concern is around sustainability in covering TWPs own travel and accommodation costs, not those of visiting teams.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Whilst I agree that it is wrong to do so, they absolutely can demand that.

 

They did it with Bradford. Taking points, players and funding away.

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

They may get in yet as I really can't see SL scuppering the play off final - what a weird thing to threaten?

Good luck if they do, Argyle's enthusiasm for Rugby League and big wallet may be some sort of assett to Superleague

You’ve changed your tune, Parky!

[Damien]

1 hour ago, lingard said:

Do you realise what you have just said?   Featherstone have "survived" for since we were thrown out of division one at the onset of this circus and have even managed to redevelop our stadium.  Something our close and "richer" neighbours have not.

I know exactly what I said. Yes it's great what Featherstone have done but it's not a thread about them is it?

[Smudger06]

30 minutes ago, Manx RL said:

Interesting to see that a concern is around sustainability in covering TWPs own travel and accommodation costs, not those of visiting teams.

Well apparently they will cover their own out of pocket costs for travel & accommodation and loss of sales to away fans through splitting the 12th TV share...

[Adelaide Tiger]

5 hours ago, Loup said:

You can't have it both ways. You can't stiff Wolfpack for a share of central funding that any other SL team would be entitled to receive, asking them to forfeit $2 million, AND demand that Wolfpack pay fares and accommodation for visiting teams.

Oh yes they will.

Plus if Toronto do eventually get a tv deal the SL Chairmen will want to get their grubby hands on that as well.

[Dave T]

I dont think Elstone was very impressive in what he said. I think it is absolutely fair enough that the entry requirements for a team from Toronto differ from those from Toulouse, which differ from those for a team in Yorkshire. 

The way he worded it all was very negatively positioned against TWP in my opinion though.

There is one point though that keeps getting ignored. Expansion to Toronto was not part of any SL strategy (mock all you want, but other Euro leagues in sport arent either), and if they now came in under normal arrangements some SL funds that currently go into the UK game would go to the game in Canada and the current clubs would incur higher costs. As a starting point I think that is reasonable that TWP are not admitted as per the BAU agreement that would see York admitted for example.

There is a stance that if this club is so lucrative with such good sponsorship deals and a rich backer, it should be pretty easy to tap into these income streams and self fund no problem via the Toronto market. SLE dont want to take the risk so are putting all the onus on TWP. For many that would be a reasonable position for something that has been put to them, rather than them targeting it as a growth area.

That said, we need to make sure we do not go too far and be unwelcoming to future developments. For me, if we are not giving them the £1.8m tv funds then the clubs should self fund any travel and that reduces the pressure on TWP to do a deal, and keeps the TV money invested in the UK. I think it is reasonable to want some guarantees that they can self fund, but surely that is quite an easy thing to do. I have no issue with making demands, but let's not make them too onerous - not that we have any evidence at all that this is the case.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Oh yes they will.

Plus if Toronto do eventually get a tv deal the SL Chairmen will want to get their grubby hands on that as well.

Any money for broadcasting SL is SLE's.

[Smudger06]

7 hours ago, Kayakman said:

That is why this clearly is a shakedown for straight cash.  Bastards!

It is a Straight forward cash grab. Basically. 

[cookey]

I'm afraid this is beginning to look like the latest rugby league PR disaster.

[Tommygilf]

What I do think we are seeing here, for the very first time, is the response of some of the leading SL clubs to the threat of being genuinely challenged from outside. Between a billionaire owner, marquee players, a loosened salary cap, a 4 times grand final winning coach and an average gate bigger than nearly half the league (whilst in the championship), we're seeing the introduction of a club that can threaten the established order potentially to the tune of Wigan in the late 80s and 90s.

One response seems to be "curl up into a ball and hope Mr Elstone finds a way to not let them in". 

I sincerely hope that my club would be and is an advocate for Toronto.

[Mark S]

What a joke of a sport we have become. We are just about to witness Union hold a World Cup in Japan, with loads of coverage and we are quibbling over £100K. The game over here is low rent and it needs sorting out. It needs to remove the working class attitude of, ‘its cr4p, but it’s ours’ ASAP.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What I do think we are seeing here, for the very first time, is the response of some of the leading SL clubs to the threat of being genuinely challenged from outside. Between a billionaire owner, marquee players, a loosened salary cap, a 4 times grand final winning coach and an average gate bigger than nearly half the league (whilst in the championship), we're seeing the introduction of a club that can threaten the established order potentially to the tune of Wigan in the late 80s and 90s.

One response seems to be "curl up into a ball and hope Mr Elstone finds a way to not let them in". 

I sincerely hope that my club would be and is an advocate for Toronto.

I'm not sure I'd go so far, as u do ultimately think they will get in.

But it does look like they dont want to put their own money in (£3.6m) over two years of the remaining SLE tv deal. That money currently goes into British RL. 

I would have more support for this position if the £1.8m was kept centrally and used to cover the costs and then for marketing and other SLE initiatives.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I'd go so far, as u do ultimately think they will get in.

But it does look like they dont want to put their own money in (£3.6m) over two years of the remaining SLE tv deal. That money currently goes into British RL. 

I would have more support for this position if the £1.8m was kept centrally and used to cover the costs and then for marketing and other SLE initiatives.

I'd agree with that, if I thought that the Toronto money would be going to be spent that way. Perhaps I'm being cynical but based on recent history, I doubt clubs posting losses (ie Wigan) or clubs not paying the full cap (ie Salford and Wakefield) will want that money going anywhere other than their bank accounts. I don't think the marketing budget is going to be increased massively by this.

What annoys me most I think is the lack of optimism and vision in the official talk around Toronto. Surely SL should be talking up being the first Trans*north*atlantic pro league. If not that then the prospect of a first French derby in SL history. Or even if York or Fev were to defy the odds they are brand new teams to the comp in places with a lot of history. Their just seems to be a whiff of protectionism on all sides sadly.

Yes there are issues, but do they need to be hung out in public. Or worse, what we know now which is only half - a problem that means we can have wild guesses at the supposed problems.

[Mattrhino]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'd agree with that, if I thought that the Toronto money would be going to be spent that way. Perhaps I'm being cynical but based on recent history, I doubt clubs posting losses (ie Wigan) or clubs not paying the full cap (ie Salford and Wakefield) will want that money going anywhere other than their bank accounts. I don't think the marketing budget is going to be increased massively by this.

What annoys me most I think is the lack of optimism and vision in the official talk around Toronto. Surely SL should be talking up being the first Trans*north*atlantic pro league. If not that then the prospect of a first French derby in SL history. Or even if York or Fev were to defy the odds they are brand new teams to the comp in places with a lot of history. Their just seems to be a whiff of protectionism on all sides sadly.

Yes there are issues, but do they need to be hung out in public. Or worse, what we know now which is only half - a problem that means we can have wild guesses at the supposed problems.

Yep. Instead of shouting on the roof tops about the possibility of one of two clubs based in two great world class cities, exactly what Super League was created for in 96. 

We instead start bicciering about a couple of grand and undermining the whole competition. 

Tolouse and Toronto have been self sustainable for years in the lower leagues without a bean given to them from the sport. Not only paying for their own travel costs but also their opposition including feeding them and hotel costs on a weekly basis. 

While our historic clubs complain about having to charter a coach for the hour long trip to Manchester Airport. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

7 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Yep. Instead of shouting on the roof tops about the possibility of one of two clubs based in two great world class cities, exactly what Super League was created for in 96. 

We instead start bicciering about a couple of grand and undermining the whole competition. 

Tolouse and Toronto have been self sustainable for years in the lower leagues without a bean given to them from the sport. Not only paying for their own travel costs but also their opposition including feeding them and hotel costs on a weekly basis. 

While our historic clubs complain about having to charter a coach for the hour long trip to Manchester Airport. 

I’m not sure 3 and 4 years is “years”. 

[nadera78]

We all know clubs didn't want to fund reserve teams, and one of them refused to even fund an academy, but are now being forced to. So we can make a pretty good guess at why they are looking greedily at an easy £180,000 p/a.

Hoping that SL would ring fence that money for travel and marketing is to ignore the evidence of the clubs' own behaviour.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

39 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

That does not surprise me

Excuse me?

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Mattrhino said:

Yep. Instead of shouting on the roof tops about the possibility of one of two clubs based in two great world class cities, exactly what Super League was created for in 96. 

We instead start bicciering about a couple of grand and undermining the whole competition. 

Tolouse and Toronto have been self sustainable for years in the lower leagues without a bean given to them from the sport. Not only paying for their own travel costs but also their opposition including feeding them and hotel costs on a weekly basis. 

While our historic clubs complain about having to charter a coach for the hour long trip to Manchester Airport. 

Indeed, it's 1996 all over again.  For the unaware, that's when the game was given a lot of money to create a Super League, but instead it rolled out a tarted-up version of the old, small time RFL Championship.  Then a few years later Sky cut back the money which is why the rug was pulled out from under Sheffield and Gateshead.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I'd agree with that, if I thought that the Toronto money would be going to be spent that way. Perhaps I'm being cynical but based on recent history, I doubt clubs posting losses (ie Wigan) or clubs not paying the full cap (ie Salford and Wakefield) will want that money going anywhere other than their bank accounts. I don't think the marketing budget is going to be increased massively by this.

What annoys me most I think is the lack of optimism and vision in the official talk around Toronto. Surely SL should be talking up being the first Trans*north*atlantic pro league. If not that then the prospect of a first French derby in SL history. Or even if York or Fev were to defy the odds they are brand new teams to the comp in places with a lot of history. Their just seems to be a whiff of protectionism on all sides sadly.

Yes there are issues, but do they need to be hung out in public. Or worse, what we know now which is only half - a problem that means we can have wild guesses at the supposed problems.

Totally agree. The comments were dour and negative, and tbh, that has been his tone on TWP pretty much from the start. It is one of the main reasons I have been critical of him. 

The talk of starting this discussion in July is pathetic. TWP were hot favourites at the start of the year and we need to be more pro-active, as tbh they look incompetent.

As I have said more than once, I have no issues with them being demanding of TWP and the level of investment SLE are prepared to make, that is their prerogative, but it's like we are being a bit sulky and awkward and hoping they will just go away.

Grasp this opportunity, sell it and make it a great news story.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, nadera78 said:

We all know clubs didn't want to fund reserve teams, and one of them refused to even fund an academy, but are now being forced to. So we can make a pretty good guess at why they are looking greedily at an easy £180,000 p/a.

Hoping that SL would ring fence that money for travel and marketing is to ignore the evidence of the clubs' own behaviour.

Aye, hoping or wanting is certainly not the same as expecting.