Reports suggest Toronto Wolfpack not guaranteed SL place

[Oliver Clothesoff]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well no, because you are ignoring the one thing that stops that - the minimum number of UK slots in the table. If it is set at 10 or 12, then it would be 10th or 12th who get relegated.

I’m not. If you add 2x French sides and 2x AN Other sides, you have a 14 team competition and you’re willing to relegated 10th out of 14th (in the situation that the four ring fences finished bottom four) based on nothing but geography. It’s lunacy. 

You simply cannot ring-fence some clubs and not all, for a start. And you cannot have relegation with this sort of structure in place. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Ah, the “Conference” debate. The new buzz word for the game. That’s me done with this discussion. 

Don't ask a question if you don't like the answer then. If you are talking about a hypothetical situation where there are that many expansion teams then it makes sense. I'm quite comfortable with the bottom English team going down in 10th with 4 beneath them safe if English clubs want to retain p&r.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I’m not. If you add 2x French sides and 2x AN Other sides, you have a 14 team competition and you’re willing to relegated 10th out of 14th (in the situation that the four ring fences finished bottom four) based on nothing but geography. It’s lunacy. 

You simply cannot ring-fence some clubs and not all, for a start. And you cannot have relegation with this sort of structure in place. 

Well you could ringfence them all if they all paid a fee in the same manner. We could even call it licensing.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I’m not. If you add 2x French sides and 2x AN Other sides, you have a 14 team competition and you’re willing to relegated 10th out of 14th (in the situation that the four ring fences finished bottom four) based on nothing but geography. It’s lunacy. 

You simply cannot ring-fence some clubs and not all, for a start. And you cannot have relegation with this sort of structure in place. 

You did ignore the minimum number when you claimed a team in 4th could be relegated.

They couldn't.

[Davo5]

19 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Ah, the “Conference” debate. The new buzz word for the game. That’s me done with this discussion. 

 

17 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I’m not. If you add 2x French sides and 2x AN Other sides, you have a 14 team competition and you’re willing to relegated 10th out of 14th (in the situation that the four ring fences finished bottom four) based on nothing but geography. It’s lunacy. 

You simply cannot ring-fence some clubs and not all, for a start. And you cannot have relegation with this sort of structure in place. 

That didn't last long.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

31 minutes ago, Damien said:

Don't ask a question if you don't like the answer then. If you are talking about a hypothetical situation where there are that many expansion teams then it makes sense. I'm quite comfortable with the bottom English team going down in 10th with 4 beneath them safe if English clubs want to retain p&r.

The answer? Conferences wasn’t an answer. It’s your opinion, not an answer. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

The answer? Conferences wasn’t an answer. It’s your opinion, not an answer. 

Its still an answer to your scenario. You may disagree or not like it but it certainly is an answer.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Its still an answer to your scenario. You may disagree or not like it but it certainly is an answer.

It’s not. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

It’s not. 

The Oxford English Dictionary says you are wrong:

To speak or write in reply to a question, remark or any expression of desire or opinion.

[Chris Taylor]

Let's hope that the team is promoted (whomever) it may be this year. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The problem is that asking Toronto to provide guarantees that they will cover transport costs is fine. But that guarantee should have been forthcoming prior to the start of the season and doesnt need to be a questioning of the club in public

If they arent going to take SL funding then the question is also why are we bothering with P+R for them. Just go to 13 teams and they have a position in perpetuity. There is no cost (as short sighted, parochial and cheap that decision would be)

What Elstone has done is portrayed the game as one which wants to be small time. That the fear isnt only that Toronto may fail it's that they may succeed. That is a game which will die. Quickly people will switch off and turn away at a massive pace if the game looks inwards instead of out.

The most idiotic part of it is that this isnt demanded of other clubs. Not Toulouse who are comparable and not the heartland clubs who will just add to the number suckling on the SL teat

Another problem with the clubs taking the money between them is that if TWP get relegated and say Leigh come up next year, the central funding goes back down. It all feels rather unnecessary.

[Canis Lupus]

regular short sighted money grab. Nothing new

[Damien]

Just now, Dave T said:

Another problem with the clubs taking the money between them is that if TWP get relegated and say Leigh come up next year, the central funding goes back down. It all feels rather unnecessary.

That though had crossed my mind too. It's nonsensical and that drop in funding again will be a sure fire way that some clubs will get into trouble.

[paulwalker71]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If they arent going to take SL funding then the question is also why are we bothering with P+R for them. Just go to 13 teams and they have a position in perpetuity. There is no cost (as short sighted, parochial and cheap that decision would be)

Isn't it obvious? Splitting the pot 11 ways means more for the existing clubs.

[Kayakman]

2 hours ago, TheReaper said:

 

Your enthusiasm is admirable, but holy ###### man, you gotta give it a bit of a rest. Not this post in particular, but just in general. 

I'll try to calm down but it is just wrong.  Think about it...Toronto forgoes its 1/12 share of the money so the other teams can travel, hotels, etc.   Why isn't it divided 12 ways instead of 11?   Doesn't Toronto have these costs also and much more?...we don't even get a proper cut of our own money which we are forced to give due to the blackmailing....its just plain wrong and turning your head the other way to pretend it isn't happening is even worse.....I don't believe in giving in to bullies and I never will no matter what Dave says.

[Dave T]

Toronto bought into the UK RL pyramid by foregoing any central funding and paying travel costs. Is it any surprise if the demand is the same in SL?

Now I dont think it needs to be, it should be one or the other. And it has been suggested in this thread that SL clubs will pay their own travel costs out of the additional funds they get. I dont think that's a bad idea as it reduces burden on TWP and they will be better off than they have been in the last couple of years. And they should be able to increase their income by being in SL.

Look at it this way. Currently TWP get zero funding and have to cover say a million quid worth of costs for visiting clubs (offset largely by AirTransat). Those costs now lie elsewhere (individual SL clubs). 

It ain't all bad. The main areas of criticism should be around the fact this hasn't been sorted by now and Elstones downbeat manner.

[GUBRATS]

Well you've all been very busy today , well done , an interesting read

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

Well if you kept getting more and more you'd move to a conference model. We can only dream of getting more and more at this stage. Indeed one would be a start.

It is the most stupid suggestion amongst hundreds of them that I have read on these pages that teams that are playing in the same league that some can get relegated whilst others would be safe.

This whole thing that overseas clubs should recieve preferential treatment is a load of sh-ite, they asked to join our competition not the other way round, whatever rules, bonds or structures our governing body wish to employ they either comply with or Cough-off, their decision. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Another problem with the clubs taking the money between them is that if TWP get relegated and say Leigh come up next year, the central funding goes back down. It all feels rather unnecessary.

It will go down for everybody in a couple of season's, for the SL clubs with a reduced TV contract and for all below SL if Leneghans proposed withdrawal of any funding is enacted, now that will have catastrophic consequences, much more so than a Canadian city shiping the circus into town.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is the most stupid suggestion amongst hundreds of them that I have read on these pages that teams that are playing in the same league that some can get relegated whilst others would be safe.

This whole thing that overseas clubs should recieve preferential treatment is a load of sh-ite, they asked to join our competition not the other way round, whatever rules, bonds or structures our governing body wish to employ they either comply with or Cough-off, their decision. 

It is similar to the Yawnion Euro Cup some years back, everybody had to qualify apart from the Irish teams as they had guaranteed spots I think. They didnt have 12 teams fighting for 4 spots or whatever, they just had 3 teams and they all played.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This whole thing that overseas clubs should recieve preferential treatment is a load of sh-ite, they asked to join our competition not the other way round, whatever rules, bonds or structures our governing body wish to employ they either comply with or Cough-off, their decision. 

Who said anything about preferential treatment? Paying a bond is not preferential treatment and you can't expect any club to pay a huge bond, get no rights then potentially be relegated a year later. That's laughable and absurd. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

I'll try to calm down but it is just wrong.  Think about it...Toronto forgoes its 1/12 share of the money so the other teams can travel, hotels, etc.   Why isn't it divided 12 ways instead of 11?   Doesn't Toronto have these costs also and much more?...we don't even get a proper cut of our own money which we are forced to give due to the blackmailing....its just plain wrong and turning your head the other way to pretend it isn't happening is even worse.....I don't believe in giving in to bullies and I never will no matter what Dave says.

You know what K'man, if I was you because you are getting so angry I would campaign for a North American league of your own, if I considered I was at a place were I could sense I wasn't wanted I would do the honorable thing.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

The way Robert Elstone is treating Toronto Wolfpack is appalling, imagine how much we’d regret it if David Argyle takes Toronto into the Rugby Union Championship and then Premiership.

Toronto have paid travel costs and taken no funding for 3 years, if they gain promotion on the field to become a Super League club they are entitled to Super League funding.

[Manx RL]

1 minute ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The way Robert Elstone is treating Toronto Wolfpack is appalling, imagine how much we’d regret it if David Argyle takes Toronto into the Rugby Union Championship and then Premiership.

Toronto have paid travel costs and taken no funding for 3 years, if they gain promotion on the field to become a Super League club they are entitled to Super League funding.

Possibly not on all those points.

[Krzzystuff]

Well let's win on the field and go from there. Its certainly frustrating but not in our control as fans (or anti-fans) in any way. I'll go with the thinking that common sense prevails.