Toronto Wolfpack approached to end Mitchell saga

[graveyard johnny]

doubt the roosters would have won the 2 premierships without him- if they let him go they will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, LM  is one of those freakish talents that only come round every so often, love to see him in SL like we used to see the aussies  such as ET in their prime playing over here in the 80s.

[Kayakman]

6 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

doubt the roosters would have won the 2 premierships without him- if they let him go they will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, LM  is one of those freakish talents that only come round every so often, love to see him in SL like we used to see the aussies  such as ET in their prime playing over here in the 80s.

YOU COULD'OV SEEN HIM AND YOU STILL CAN...INCREASE THE CAP!...MAKE THREE MARQUEE PLAYERS!

[Kayakman]

54 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Why would they do that? For the sake of RL or because TWP want it so! Increasing the SC,would merely increase debts for the majority of clubs.

Find a way round that and you have your salary cap increase. 

In fact get Argyle to buy all the leagues and create the CRFL body which he can head.

 

Are you some type of communist?

[Cameron Highlander]

23 hours ago, SL17 said:

Available,is fine.. Unfortunately TWP salary cap is increasing by the minute.

Just like Catalans did.

The game carries rules. If you want them changing, simply create your own league.

Here we go again.

[Cameron Highlander]

1 hour ago, SL17 said:

Why would they do that? For the sake of RL or because TWP want it so! Increasing the SC,would merely increase debts for the majority of clubs.

Find a way round that and you have your salary cap increase. 

In fact get Argyle to buy all the leagues and create the CRFL body which he can head.

 

Here we go again.

[Damien]

22 hours ago, dkw said:

Yeah, it's disgusting when a Club demands a change in the rules like say an increase in the salary cap.... 

Yeah outrageous isn't it. They should know their place and all clubs should just stay in the dark ages. That will keep fans with an agenda, which basically amounts to what suits their particular club, happy.

[Click]

5 hours ago, SL17 said:

Is your keyboard stuck? Possibly you could add to the debate or is that out of your comfort zone..

Come on big boy, let the fingers do the talking.

Haven't you just re-iterated the same points over the last few months? I am not sure your contribution was that much more.

[Cameron Highlander]

14 hours ago, Click said:

Haven't you just re-iterated the same points over the last few months? I am not sure your contribution was that much more.

I agree and you're totally correct Click.    Not just over - but over and over and over ad nauseam. 

[Kayakman]

33 minutes ago, Cameron Highlander said:

I agree and you're totally correct Click.    Not just over - but over and over and over ad nauseam. 

He is up against it and he knows it...thats why he acts that way.

[Omott91]

4 hours ago, Kayakman said:

He is up against it and he knows it...thats why he acts that way.

He's just filling the void that Parky left. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

5 hours ago, SL17 said:

What is “it” I’m up against? Expansion, development, salary cap,  more marquees, home fixtures played in the UK.

Just doesn’t float my boat.. It isn’t progression until you fulfil your ultimate goal.

Again, still not sure what that ultimate goal is.

So the odds are most definitely stacked against you, not moi.

 

Come on SL17 just what in RL ‘floats your boat’.

Also how do you ‘fulfil your ultimate goal’ if you do not have progression towards it?

[Kayakman]

10 hours ago, SL17 said:

What is “it” I’m up against? Expansion, development, salary cap,  more marquees, home fixtures played in the UK.

Just doesn’t float my boat.. It isn’t progression until you fulfil your ultimate goal.

Again, still not sure what that ultimate goal is.

So the odds are most definitely stacked against you, not moi.

 

I see I hit the mark directly in the center of the bullseye.....now turn that frown upside down and smile for once!

[Dave T]

Marquee rule was brought in to sign big name players commanding wages that could be justified that would put bums on seats and get coverage. 

SBW is a perfect example of the kind of signing we should be making allowances for. Latrell Mitchell would be another. However when yiu have used a space on Lussick, I'm not convinced you should be then demanding another slot to sign Mitchell. 

It is one of my issues with the marquee rule, it should be for genuine World class players, or entertainers. 

[Kayakman]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Marquee rule was brought in to sign big name players commanding wages that could be justified that would put bums on seats and get coverage. 

SBW is a perfect example of the kind of signing we should be making allowances for. Latrell Mitchell would be another. However when yiu have used a space on Lussick, I'm not convinced you should be then demanding another slot to sign Mitchell. 

It is one of my issues with the marquee rule, it should be for genuine World class players, or entertainers. 

How does it jam anyone up by giving Toronto another marquee spot?   Give everyone another marquee spot and let that simply be the end of it...problem solved.

P.S.  Also increase the cap by at least one million pounds for everyone also.

[LR23]

I kind of feel for Toronto here - yes they've used marquee spots on good but not great players and given out some over inflated contracts but they've probably had to in order to ensure promotion and tempt people to join the 'project'. Now they are having to re-manage their finances and bring together a competitive squad in a very short time - it's a tall order. Next season, even with the current rules, it would be less of an issue so I'm not sure a knee jerk solution is needed.

I'm sure some will say 'they knew what they were letting themselves in for' but if we actually want expansion to work we need to give it a chance and not put up as many blockages as possible. I'm not sure what dispensation you could offer without sending everyone into a blind rage but I do feel that because of the current approach and rules this will be a bit of a wasted season for Toronto and maybe the rest of the league.

[Marty Funkhouser]

12 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

How does it jam anyone up by giving Toronto another marquee spot?   Give everyone another marquee spot and let that simply be the end of it...problem solved.

P.S.  Also increase the cap by at least one million pounds for everyone also.

It might have been prudent for Toronto to study the rules and regulations of a competition they are spending millions to be part of. It perhaps would have also paid to do a bit of due diligence on the competition and it's other participants as to the likelihood of said rules and regulations been torn up for TW's benefit. 

[Kayakman]

45 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

It might have been prudent for Toronto to study the rules and regulations of a competition they are spending millions to be part of. It perhaps would have also paid to do a bit of due diligence on the competition and it's other participants as to the likelihood of said rules and regulations been torn up for TW's benefit. 

You mean the same rules that stated all SL clubs would receive an equal share of central Sky funding?...is that one of the 'set in stone' rules you are referring to Marty?  Or is it just an 'ad hoc' thing that they make up as they go?....simple question.

[Marty Funkhouser]

 

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

You mean the same rules that stated all SL clubs would receive an equal share of central Sky funding?...is that one of the 'set in stone' rules you are referring to Marty?  Or is it just an 'ad hoc' thing that they make up as they go?....simple question.

They certainly do make them up as they go along hence the rules have been considerably adjusted or overlooked to allow TW's participation in the competition and this will, and will have to, continue for the duration of TW's stay in SL.  If TW had to adhere to the same competition rules as everyone else they would have zero chance of competing.  The foregoing of an amount less than the wage paid by TW to one player pales into comparison . TW say (or boast) they can easily afford to pay such figures in wages, and more , yet other clubs entire existence is dependent on this annual funding share . Let us not forget that every other club in the competition is paying for , themselves, reserve and academy teams to produce the next lot of Toronto players should they persevere. Yet TW don't just want this nice gift, they want more and more rule dispensations and allowances. 

TW do not appear to have much regard for the competition they want to be part of or have either been misled by their own staff or did not properly consider what membership of SL would and does entail.

 

 

 

[DoubleD]

Wasn’t it planned for SL to increase the marquee allowance to 3 or was I dreaming that?

[Kayakman]

4 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

 

They certainly do make them up as they go along hence the rules have been considerably adjusted or overlooked to allow TW's participation in the competition and this will, and will have to, continue for the duration of TW's stay in SL.  If TW had to adhere to the same competition rules as everyone else they would have zero chance of competing.  The foregoing of an amount less than the wage paid by TW to one player pales into comparison . TW say (or boast) they can easily afford to pay such figures in wages, and more , yet other clubs entire existence is dependent on this annual funding share . Let us not forget that every other club in the competition is paying for , themselves, reserve and academy teams to produce the next lot of Toronto players should they persevere. Yet TW don't just want this nice gift, they want more and more rule dispensations and allowances. 

TW do not appear to have much regard for the competition they want to be part of or have either been misled by their own staff or did not properly consider what membership of SL would and does entail.

 

 

 

Now Marty I know you are a fine fellow but that answer you have penned in the quote above.....do you think that there is any bias in that statement?

P.S.  Marty you did not answer my direct question on whether or not the Sky funds were to be equally distributed to all clubs or not....I know why you didn't answer and you know too.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Kayakman said:

You mean the same rules that stated all SL clubs would receive an equal share of central Sky funding?...is that one of the 'set in stone' rules you are referring to Marty?  Or is it just an 'ad hoc' thing that they make up as they go?....simple question.

Whilst the point about splitting the TV money has some merit, no, not the same rules.

I don't believe the terms of the commercial income is in the operational rules, however things like overseas quotas and salary caps are. 

So they are very different things. 

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Whilst the point about splitting the TV money has some merit, no, not the same rules.

I don't believe the terms of the commercial income is in the operational rules, however things like overseas quotas and salary caps are. 

So they are very different things. 

So it IS a pick and choose type scenario!

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

So it IS a pick and choose type scenario!

IF YOU LIKE

[Kayakman]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

IF YOU LIKE

If I like it or don't like it is irrelevant to the argument/discussion: my statement is either factual or it isn't.

We both know what the truthful answer is, one of us is just not afraid to admit it!

[TIWIT]

One of these things is not like the others.