Toronto Given Green Light to Enter Super League

[frank]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

There’s a game to play first though.  

 

IMO, it was only going to end one way, with SL bosses wanting the money.

Lets see how much is used to better stadia or develop players.

More likely to be spent on Aussies that are  over the hill or couldn't manage to climb it.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

So am I right in thinking the headline could be "SL and existing SL clubs set to lose £1.9m in funding if Toronto lose"? Bizarre.

You're right, that would be a bizarre headline to write. 

[Scubby]

Just now, Dave T said:

You're right, that would be a bizarre headline to write. 

But it is true

[Oxford]

Never mind all this, has anyone gone round to Parky's to check he's alright?

Call yourself a Rugby League Family?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

But it is true

It isn't. They havent got any increase as yet, so you cant lose that.

They currently get £1.8m. They will get at least £1.8m next year.

It would be bizarre to describe any option as SL clubs losing funding.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Wouldnt Toronto be SLE. 

I'm sure it will all be down to membership status.

[Dave T]

As a reminder, TWP havent taken any central funding for the last 3 years. It is the same agreement this year, just worth more.

[GUBRATS]

27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Wouldnt Toronto be SLE. 

Its a ridiculous situation and a real problem, even just in terms of governance and integrity. It is simply unacceptable from the point of view of the integrity of the competition that the results of 1 side effect the revenue of others. 

We had, only a couple of weeks ago, people on this board arguing quite vociferously that the whether 1 round of games are played concurrently or consecutively is an existential threat to the integrity of the competition on the basis of an outlandish possibility that it could leave clubs engineering results for what are relatively minimal benefits (or even no benefit at all, just laziness). 

Yet we have now created a situation where we could end up with a situation where we come to the last weekend of next season and say Wakefield are safely mid-table and Toronto stay up with a win, they play each other last game of the season, Why are Wakefield going to go out to win try and win that game if it means they lose £150k in funding?

Good point , I agree completely that if for whatever reason one or more clubs in SL don't receive their ' share ' of central funds , they shouldn't then be ' divvied up ' to the rest 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Good point , I agree completely that if for whatever reason one or more clubs in SL don't receive their ' share ' of central funds , they shouldn't then be ' divvied up ' to the rest 

Yep. I have no massive issue with SLE not taking the risk of investing in Canada in the early years, but I think there are far more sensible ways of investing that money.

[paulwalker71]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep. I have no massive issue with SLE not taking the risk of investing in Canada in the early years, but I think there are far more sensible ways of investing that money.

I agree with that

It's not the fact of Toronto not getting the funding, its the utter self-interest and greed of the other clubs splitting it between themselves that irks. I fully expected it, given they did exactly the same with Bradfords money back whenever it was, but still...

It could have gone into youth development, marketing, player welfare, anything really that would help to grow the brand. But, no, it will doubtless go on some over-priced, over-the-hill Aussies and NZ players (and agents fees, of course) who do nothing to grow SL.

[Big Picture]

51 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

I agree with that

It's not the fact of Toronto not getting the funding, its the utter self-interest and greed of the other clubs splitting it between themselves that irks. I fully expected it, given they did exactly the same with Bradfords money back whenever it was, but still...

It could have gone into youth development, marketing, player welfare, anything really that would help to grow the brand. But, no, it will doubtless go on some over-priced, over-the-hill Aussies and NZ players (and agents fees, of course) who do nothing to grow SL.

Speak for yourself with that first comment, for some of us it's about both of those things.

We'll probably find that the other clubs needed a chunk of the money to be able to afford their one road trip to Toronto during the season because they're too hard up to fund it any other way.

[fighting irish]

How about buying in 40 development specialists and putting them to work. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

A sensible decision in the end.

Best of luck to both teams in the Final.

[Davo5]

27 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

How about buying in 40 development specialists and putting them to work. 

Now don’t go talking sense on a TWP thread,it’s not allowed surely.

[Odsal Outlaw]

Could have used the funding to replace lost gate receipts and scrap the loop fixtures!

[Kayakman]

How many Canadian dollars are we talking about Toronto losing by not getting central funding?

[Big Picture]

18 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

How many Canadian dollars are we talking about Toronto losing by not getting central funding?

The 2 million £ which I've seen mentioned is slightly more than 3.25 million C$ at current rates.

[The Parksider]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Appalling stuff from the mods, locking the epic thread before Parky replied to my post?

1 - You claim the SL criteria are Huge NA TV Deal and new pro-players. You claim this is a fact. However it is fair to say they don't have these things, so why are the conversations ongoing?

2 -  Bob Hunter has stated that the criteria they are trying to meet at the moment is the proof of financial viability. These are not the same as your stated criteria, why?

3 - And on the criteria - could you provide evidence of what they are?  

1. Because SL are short of viable clubs for Superleague hence they proposed a cut to 10 early this year that Championship clubs rejected. Argylle offers himself as a rich owner which is one thing we want, but we also want clubs to underpin a TV deal and develop players. TWP cannot do either of those things and never will, but Warrington can. Wire score 3 out of 3 Toronto score 1 out of 3. 

2. Because of the three criteria TWP obviously can't meet player production or TV money requirements but they have a rich owner, but he doesn't like to pay debts. Therefore they didn't meet any criteria, and the only one Hunter could fix "at the moment" was financial guarantees. It's a given they don't meet the other two.

3. Yes  but you were on this website in 2016 when Perez answered the  RFL's required criteria for what clubs needed to do to meet Superleague standards. The criteria TWP were asked to work towards were.........

NA PLAYER DEVELOPMENT WAS REQUIRED AS PEREZ ACKNOWLEDGED BUT FAILED TO DO:-

Eric Perez 6^th, May 2016 Perez: “We will be working with the CRL to develop a strong talent pool. 19^th. July 2016 “We want as many Canadians in the squad as possible, there is a wealth of talent, college football super athletes. 27^th, April 2016 “we’ll be spending a month here to ensure we find the top athletes this country is producing: there will be North American roots.23^rd Nov 2016 “ there will be ‘at least five, maybe 10, players from Canada, the USA and Jamaica in the TWP squad”.

TV DEALS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE GAME HERE BUT THEY DID NOT MATERIALISE SO PEREZ SAID:-

Eric Perez late 2016 "TWP was never just a one club project. One team is not enough to yield what you need to yield from the NATV market. To bring NATV revenues, to really start bringing new money into the sport you've got to have at least five or six North American clubs in Superleague in the next 10 years."

TWP fail on their  own stated aims of bringing to the game more players and more TV money, with Perez recently stating "it isn't easy" when asked where the players were. When asked about where the TV deal was as above he says that will come in once once four more NA clubs replace four English clubs in SL. 

Read it TWP was never just a one club project You and others think it's fantastic TWP go up for London, but now it's my turn to ask you - which four Superleague clubs should be relegated for Ottawa, New York, Montreal and Vancouver between now and the end of Perez's  "10 year plan" 2016-2026 for a Transatlantic League???

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, Oxford said:

Never mind all this, has anyone gone round to Parky's to check he's alright?

Call yourself a Rugby League Family?

Yeah but he was with sidekick MOK,they didn’t look happy mind.

[Manxmanc]

14 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

1. Because SL are short of viable clubs for Superleague hence they proposed a cut to 10 early this year that Championship clubs rejected. Argylle offers himself as a rich owner which is one thing we want, but we also want clubs to underpin a TV deal and develop players. TWP cannot do either of those things and never will, but Warrington can. Wire score 3 out of 3 Toronto score 1 out of 3. 

2. Because of the three criteria TWP obviously can't meet player production or TV money requirements but they have a rich owner, but he doesn't like to pay debts. Therefore they didn't meet any criteria, and the only one Hunter could fix "at the moment" was financial guarantees. It's a given they don't meet the other two.

3. Yes  but you were on this website in 2016 when Perez answered the  RFL's required criteria for what clubs needed to do to meet Superleague standards. The criteria TWP were asked to work towards were.........

NA PLAYER DEVELOPMENT WAS REQUIRED AS PEREZ ACKNOWLEDGED BUT FAILED TO DO:-

Eric Perez 6^th, May 2016 Perez: “We will be working with the CRL to develop a strong talent pool. 19^th. July 2016 “We want as many Canadians in the squad as possible, there is a wealth of talent, college football super athletes. 27^th, April 2016 “we’ll be spending a month here to ensure we find the top athletes this country is producing: there will be North American roots.23^rd Nov 2016 “ there will be ‘at least five, maybe 10, players from Canada, the USA and Jamaica in the TWP squad”.

TV DEALS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE GAME HERE BUT THEY DID NOT MATERIALISE SO PEREZ SAID:-

Eric Perez late 2016 "TWP was never just a one club project. One team is not enough to yield what you need to yield from the NATV market. To bring NATV revenues, to really start bringing new money into the sport you've got to have at least five or six North American clubs in Superleague in the next 10 years."

TWP fail on their  own stated aims of bringing to the game more players and more TV money, with Perez recently stating "it isn't easy" when asked where the players were. When asked about where the TV deal was as above he says that will come in once once four more NA clubs replace four English clubs in SL. 

Read it TWP was never just a one club project You and others think it's fantastic TWP go up for London, but now it's my turn to ask you - which four Superleague clubs should be relegated for Ottawa, New York, Montreal and Vancouver between now and the end of Perzes' "10 year plan" 2016-2026 for a Transatlantic League???

There's been some cracking rugby over the past few weeks. I was wondering whether you have enjoyed any of the games.

[Pulga]

Parky, you seem to grab throw away bits and pieces of quotes and string them together to make some weird narrative that only you seem to understand.

 

With this announcement you've lost again. What next?

[morley101]

Hopefully they will take 1 game to BC Place next  year  if they win promotion.

 

[TIWIT]

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Toronto having to without their share of the TV money is shocking but predictable, it really shows what a small time, Mickey Mouse operation the so-called "Super League" is.

Why do people keep using Mickey Mouse as representing something cheap and shoddy? Super League would s***t themselves if the Mouse came calling.

[TIWIT]

6 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Parky. 

Wouldn't be a very interesting game. TWP would be down to 5 players by halftime.

[TIWIT]

So if TWP aren't getting Sky money, who will pay to produce their games next year? If they lose on Saturday I assume they will continue to produce Championship games (giving that League the only TV exposure they receive) but if they win and are in Super League will they still have to self-produce their games? Will Sky pay them for this? Or will it be a swap-in-kind? Who will pay to produce TWP games in the winter if they take early home games on the road to other cities? Would Sky want them to play Saturdays at home or will they want them to play at home on a Thursday/Friday afternoon?

And if TWP do get a large Canadian TV deal, will SL expect a cut of that?

It all strikes me as being terribly complicated. That's probably why it took so long to confirm Toronto's entry - all the legal-beagles going over the permutations of who pays for what and who gets a share of the profits. (Any losses of course will be entirely Toronto's responsibility.)