Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Smudger06

Brian McDermott's Big City Team League

Recommended Posts

On 16/10/2019 at 21:11, Eddie said:

No I’m not. I’m saying it’s in relatively small towns / markets by North American standards (like RL is by English standards) and therefore according to your logic should be looking to expand into bigger cities. However I am saying that your logic is flawed and RL trying to expand to loads of big cities in non RL areas won’t work (as has been proven umpteen times in fact), just like it didn’t work for CFL. Capisce?

CFL is in the largest markets in Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Where they have come from since 1896, what a ridiculous argument, as is your North American claptrap. McDermott has had to come out and come clean on behalf of TWP and admit they aren't going to be developing players or getting TV deals, i.e. that failed. It's clear your only fishing for "like this" emojies. You got ten, now convince 100,000 SL fans you have a point.

Are you suggesting that there is an endless stream of bored businessmen just waiting for an RL club to become available? And even if there is, any Bulls fan will tell you that any such queue includes your Omar Khans, Greens and Chalmers' of this world, not to mention the various idiots and shysters who have taken punts on various RL clubs. The model just isn't sustainable.

The game needs to move to a point where every club can be and is self sufficient. I don't see that as a particularly controversial view.

I don't know why your brought player development into this - I never raised it. The first Super League standard Canadians probably haven't even been born yet. At best, they're still in pampers. It takes time - generations in fact - to develop top level RL players. 

And if you think that Internet likes get me up in the morning, I'm afraid to say you're mistaken. Like you're mistaken that these two online fan polls that you keep referring to are in any way credible or relevant. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael1812 said:

CFL is in the largest markets in Canada. 

Yet in Toronto the Argonauts struggle to be relevant because they play in a league with teams in smaller cities like Hamilton and Regina which Torontonians think they've outgrown since the Blue Jays and Raptors (and Toronto FC to a lesser extent since soccer's a lower-profile sport here than baseball or basketball) came to town.  That same thing might have begun to happen to the CFL franchises in Vancouver and Montréal now too.

Edited by Big Picture
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael1812 said:

CFL is in the largest markets in Canada. 

And that's where they're struggling the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

 you Parky..... If you.........your stuff........your efforts..........

Erm the debate is TWP's admission via their coach they have not been able to deliver any players or TV deals and are unlikely to do that. These were the success criteria their founder set the club, plus in failing to do that they ran up a £10,000,000 debt and continue to run that higher as they enter Superleague. Oddly enough their coach excuses this total failure of their  business plan on the other clubs for not being "big city's".

Just admit TWP far from being a massive success are a massive failure, and we can call it a day?? Having a go at me is the usual cheap trick tried literally more than a thousand times. Trying to hound someone out of a debate isn't grown up is it? 

12 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

1. Are you suggesting that there is an endless stream of businessmen waiting for an RL club to become available? 

2. You're mistaken that these two online fan polls that you keep referring to are in any way credible or relevant. 

3. The game needs to move to a point where every club can be and is self sufficient. I don't see that as a particularly controversial view.

1. 123 years on and the model still works, only in the last 23 years the success has risen a level with the game stepping up from semi-pro to Professional. We have done pretty good and continue onwards with a new SKY deal waiting.

2. You have your one opinion, thousands of fans have theirs - as a democrat I'll accept the majority vote. TWP are now pointless by their own admission no players, no TV deals and one of the biggest trading debts ever in the history of the game.

3. I don't see it at all because you woffle on from post to post claiming your a marketing genius, but never actually set out your cunning plan. Please let myself and my business advisor Mr. Gubrats know what it is. We may start our own club in Timbuktu with this plan. 

Edited by The Parksider
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.... I'm the one that waffles on. 🙄

If you and Grubrats want my advice for your new club, DM me and I'll happily provide my rate card.

But I'll give you my first piece of advice for free - don't start an SL club in Timbuktu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Yeah.... I'm the one that waffles on. 🙄

If you and Grubrats want my advice for your new club, DM me and I'll happily provide my rate card.

But I'll give you my first piece of advice for free - don't start an SL club in Timbuktu.

Cost wise probably not much difference to Toronto 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Damien said:

If TWP are a massive failure then God only knows what it makes most of the other clubs with a 100 year head start.

In truth probably none ( maybe just one perhaps ) of those clubs have run anything like that level of debt up over those 100 years , so it depends how you are looking at it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

In truth probably none ( maybe just one perhaps ) of those clubs have run anything like that level of debt up over those 100 years , so it depends how you are looking at it 

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Damien said:

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

I agree , I used the word ' debt ' which is perhaps as you suggest wrong , and was a response to what I saw as a criticism of historic clubs that have survived and prospered ( and struggled ) for over a century , why did you feel the need to do that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Damien said:

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

You think he doesn't want that money back ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

You think he doesn't want that money back ???

No , or the other 10 million + he'll get rid of in the next 3 years 

What do you spend your spare cash on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I agree , I used the word ' debt ' which is perhaps as you suggest wrong , and was a response to what I saw as a criticism of historic clubs that have survived and prospered ( and struggled ) for over a century , why did you feel the need to do that ?

Parky is saying they are a massive failure and I don't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. The only comparison can be made with existing clubs and TWP stack up pretty well to most, including several Super League ones. Therefore if they are a failure what does it make many of the other RL clubs? It's a pretty fair question I feel in the context of the statement that was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

You think he doesn't want that money back ???

Do you think he's put the money in thinking he can't get it back? The only way he can get it back, if he so desires, is by Toronto being a success. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Damien said:

Do you think he's put the money in thinking he can't get it back? The only way he can get it back, if he so desires, is by Toronto being a success. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

So it's debt then. 

All be it on low interest, long term and highly flexible terms. 

Yes, He thinks he can get it back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

So it's debt then. 

All be it on low interest, long term and highly flexible terms. 

Yes, He thinks he can get it back. 

How do you know its debt? You are jumping to conclusions. For me it's irrelevant anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a billionaire , it's spare cash to him , same as us normal people would spend on a night at the cinema , so no it isn't ' debt ' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Parky is saying they are a massive failure and I don't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. The only comparison can be made with existing clubs and TWP stack up pretty well to most, including several Super League ones. Therefore if they are a failure what does it make many of the other RL clubs? It's a pretty fair question I feel in the context of the statement that was made.

That depends on your criteria , crowds ? , Positive ( very in fact ) , financially ?, Negative ( very ) , the declared player production ? Well both negative on the conversion claim ( not surprisingly ) and obviously The long term development which is a silly argument ( although will need ' something ' fairly soon IMO ) and shouldn't be brought into the discussion yet 

I don't really compare to any other club as any comparison is daft really , there issues are fairly clear , as are our traditional clubs , the answers to both are very very different IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

He will get the money back by a) taking a cut of any TV deals or b) selling TWP at a price to cover his costs. 

Or not at all if a TV deal doesn't happen ( and even then he won't if it does as all that will do is pay for future running costs ) , only if the fabled massive NA expansion happens , which again isn't a given 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Or not at all if a TV deal doesn't happen ( and even then he won't if it does as all that will do is pay for future running costs ) , only if the fabled massive NA expansion happens , which again isn't a given 

Yes a TV Deal would pay towards future running costs, 20% or 25% may go to repaying the owners out of pocket costs? Or he may just sell up to get back his money once TWP are at break even point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Yes a TV Deal would pay towards future running costs, 20% or 25% may go to repaying the owners out of pocket costs? Or he may just sell up to get back his money once TWP are at break even point. 

Its his ' pocket money ' , what do you spend yours on ? , Do you get it back ?

Edited by GUBRATS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...