The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[TIWIT]

8 minutes ago, TBone said:

Surely TWP have known all along where they stand re: the SC as it has been in place ever since they joined the RFL competitions. So, the catalyst for needing more is, as others have stated above, signing SBW as a third marquee player and thus having to count yhe full salary of one in the cap (presumably the cheapest). TWP then ask for cap dispensation, did they not know they would blow the cap when they signed him? If not it is a terrible inditement of their cap management. 

Anyhow, putting that aside, some on here want the cap raising by 5% for them, and this is thought to be fair as ‘everyone can spend it’. Sorry, but that’s just not right - most of the clubs in SL run on a tight budget and that budget will have been planned pretty much to the last penny. Where will they get the extra funds from? The extra central funding? No, that will already be baked into their budgets! So, that’s not right unless, maybe TWP want to contribute each club’s increase? After all they do have a ‘magic money tree’?

(on that - does anyone know if argyle’s money is ‘given’ or is a directors loan?)

On the point of having them having to pay more to get players... I doubt that that is unique to TWP, I think that players put a salary premium on playing for a club for all sorts of reasons, e.g. whether they are likely to see out the term of their contract before the club either goes bust or is relegated.

Overall I think TWP have every right to ask (about an exemption) but they took a punt on getting SBW knowing full well that they could only have 2 MQ player salaries exempted, but went ahead anyway and are now giving us a sob story. Sorry, fellas, I think you should lose out on this one.

Everyone gets a 5% bump on salary cap. Everyone doesn't have to spend it. But come August and you're sitting 4 points out of the playoffs and a player you know could help you close that gap and because of that extra space under the cap you can afford him a club would be crazy not to go for it.

And need I remind you TWP has already been forced to increase the other 11 team's share of Sky's TV money by 9%.

[RobertAM]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

However, as we know, clubs can spend far more than £2.1m. TWP are spending more than that on one player. 

again.he's a named marquee player .only 150k is going towards the cap

[TIWIT]

49 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Nice to see you’re learning
 

It was pretty obvious that Fev simply were not a SL-calibre team even before the MPG. They'd have been a nail there, hammered every game. TWP will at the very least be competitive.

[Kayakman]

3 hours ago, TBone said:

Surely TWP have known all along where they stand re: the SC as it has been in place ever since they joined the RFL competitions. So, the catalyst for needing more is, as others have stated above, signing SBW as a third marquee player and thus having to count yhe full salary of one in the cap (presumably the cheapest). TWP then ask for cap dispensation, did they not know they would blow the cap when they signed him? If not it is a terrible inditement of their cap management. 

Anyhow, putting that aside, some on here want the cap raising by 5% for them, and this is thought to be fair as ‘everyone can spend it’. Sorry, but that’s just not right - most of the clubs in SL run on a tight budget and that budget will have been planned pretty much to the last penny. Where will they get the extra funds from? The extra central funding? No, that will already be baked into their budgets! So, that’s not right unless, maybe TWP want to contribute each club’s increase? After all they do have a ‘magic money tree’?

(on that - does anyone know if argyle’s money is ‘given’ or is a directors loan?)

On the point of having them having to pay more to get players... I doubt that that is unique to TWP, I think that players put a salary premium on playing for a club for all sorts of reasons, e.g. whether they are likely to see out the term of their contract before the club either goes bust or is relegated.

Overall I think TWP have every right to ask (about an exemption) but they took a punt on getting SBW knowing full well that they could only have 2 MQ player salaries exempted, but went ahead anyway and are now giving us a sob story. Sorry, fellas, I think you should lose out on this one.

Come on...give us a break!

We helped you out in the wars.

[RobertAM]

A 5% increase in the cap would allow us to bring in perhaps 2 Quinn Ngawati level players and go to a 25 man squad. For a UK SL club maybe another Nick Rawsthorne level player, surely it's to the competitions benefit to bring in up and comers? 

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, RobertAM said:

agree with TBone  last line entirely. A competition calling itself Superleague should empower their teams by enabling them to attract top talent and you can;t do that with a 2.1m pd cap.

You overlook the fact that the so-called "Super League" is nothing of the kind, it's just a tarted-up version of the old small time, regional RFL championship and always has been.

[aj1908]

4 hours ago, SL17 said:

Pitiful reply. Guess you are lost for words.

For a change

nah your post made good arguments.  

[aj1908]

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Come on...give us a break!

We helped you out in the wars.

you had to obey your head of state, like all us colonials have too

i thought he was canadian anyway the guy you quoted

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, RobertAM said:

A 5% increase in the cap would allow us to bring in perhaps 2 Quinn Ngawati level players and go to a 25 man squad. For a UK SL club maybe another Nick Rawsthorne level player, surely it's to the competitions benefit to bring in up and comers? 

it sets a bad precedent in that the wolfpack think they can ask for favours every time they are in trouble.  

 

[Treize Hombres]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You overlook the fact that the so-called "Super League" is nothing of the kind, it's just a tarted-up version of the old small time, regional RFL championship and always has been.

So why do TWP want to be in it then?

You will see in the coming weeks that it is far superior to anything TWP have encountered so far. Hence the push for dispensation so you can stay there and be competitive. 

I agree the Salary Cap is restricting clubs like yours but on the other hand it helps other clubs to survive. A solution to this problem is required but it's a bit late in the day to change anything for this season. In this respect, it's the administrators of our game who are "small time".

I personally don't think you will finish at the foot of the table but you won't be pushing for honours either. Next year is one of consolidation and barring a disasterous spate of injuries TWP will more than hold their own against the weaker SL teams. 

To some you are trying to buying success whilst to others you are helping the game to expand. We have experienced both scenarios before in RL and the outcome hasn't been positive. It's time for a sensible middle ground to be found......and preferably before the 2021 season begins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, RobertAM said:

again.he's a named marquee player .only 150k is going towards the cap

That isn't really related to my point, in fact you are just sort of confirming my point. You claim that a £2.1m cap isn't enough to create squads and sign star players, but in reality clubs can spend far more than £2.1m if they wish. Many are doing so. 

The clubs agreed that they should be able to spend more than 2.1m and agreed to change the rules a few years back. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, RobertAM said:

A 5% increase in the cap would allow us to bring in perhaps 2 Quinn Ngawati level players and go to a 25 man squad. For a UK SL club maybe another Nick Rawsthorne level player, surely it's to the competitions benefit to bring in up and comers? 

There is a dispensation for clubs of up to £100k for developing their own talent. As I've said previously, I think it is reasonable to allow TWP to have this due to being a new club in an overseas territory. I have supported a small weighting increase too. 

This should allow for some younger talent signings who can maybe be DR'd at a UK club. 

That sounds reasonable to me. 

[nadera78]

When Richard Lewis was in charge of the RFL London Broncos received a 10% weighting to the salary cap to reflect (in a small way) the massive differences in the cost of living between London and the north of England. It didn't happen last season (the Broncos didn't pay full cap anyway, so no idea if the idea was rejected or simply not asked for).

I don't see why Toronto can't have an additional 10% on a similar basis.

[Bob8]

2 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

When Richard Lewis was in charge of the RFL London Broncos received a 10% weighting to the salary cap to reflect (in a small way) the massive differences in the cost of living between London and the north of England. It didn't happen last season (the Broncos didn't pay full cap anyway, so no idea if the idea was rejected or simply not asked for).

I don't see why Toronto can't have an additional 10% on a similar basis.

It would create a more level playing field, which SL17 cited as the main reason for the cap.

[GUBRATS]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is a dispensation for clubs of up to £100k for developing their own talent. As I've said previously, I think it is reasonable to allow TWP to have this due to being a new club in an overseas territory. I have supported a small weighting increase too. 

This should allow for some younger talent signings who can maybe be DR'd at a UK club. 

That sounds reasonable to me. 

This is correct , they obviously don't have access to self produced or indeed long term contracted players , common sense would suggest they should have ' some ' allowance for this , but it should have been sorted months ago 

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

When Richard Lewis was in charge of the RFL London Broncos received a 10% weighting to the salary cap to reflect (in a small way) the massive differences in the cost of living between London and the north of England. It didn't happen last season (the Broncos didn't pay full cap anyway, so no idea if the idea was rejected or simply not asked for).

I don't see why Toronto can't have an additional 10% on a similar basis.

But the living in Toronto is a false one , they don't live in Toronto , the London players did actually live there with their families 

Should Leeds have a weighting because it's more expensive to live in Leeds than Castleford ? , Salford compared to Wigan ?

[Bob8]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

But the living in Toronto is a false one , they don't live in Toronto , the London players did actually live there with their families 

They will be spending a chunk away from home in Toronto.

If it were a job, I would expect accommodation, food and services to be thrown in and a per diem. How would that be considered in the cap?

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Bob8 said:

They will be spending a chunk away from home in Toronto.

If it were a job, I would expect accommodation, food and services to be thrown in and a per diem. How would that be considered in the cap?

They don't have to sort that themselves , it is SALARY cap we are discussing , not a TRAVEL and HOTEL cap 

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

This is correct , they obviously don't have access to self produced or indeed long term contracted players , common sense would suggest they should have ' some ' allowance for this , but it should have been sorted months ago 

It should have, and I suppose we don't know who is dragging their feet. 

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But the living in Toronto is a false one , they don't live in Toronto , the London players did actually live there with their families 

Should Leeds have a weighting because it's more expensive to live in Leeds than Castleford ? , Salford compared to Wigan ?

Weighting doesn't only apply to where you live, it is where your job is. If their job is 3 or 4 months in Toronto it is reasonable to expect higher costs during that period. 

[TBone]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

They don't have to sort that themselves , it is SALARY cap we are discussing , not a TRAVEL and HOTEL cap 

Hmmm, I would guess that housing costs would be deemed to be subject to cap. However, for players that actually reside in the UK, maybe TWP games in canada could be viewed as away games so that TWP could pay T&S outside the cap. Maybe then they could afford (cap wise) an extra couple of players.

 

PS. the cap covers many costs that are not directly player salary but are benefits in kind or as a result of playing for the club e.g. housing, partner salary (if working at the same club), flights home, payment for additional work by entities with close ties to the club, etc (not sure about sponsored vehicles)

[GUBRATS]

17 minutes ago, TBone said:

Hmmm, I would guess that housing costs would be deemed to be subject to cap. However, for players that actually reside in the UK, maybe TWP games in canada could be viewed as away games so that TWP could pay T&S outside the cap. Maybe then they could afford (cap wise) an extra couple of players.

 

PS. the cap covers many costs that are not directly player salary but are benefits in kind or as a result of playing for the club e.g. housing, partner salary (if working at the same club), flights home, payment for additional work by entities with close ties to the club, etc (not sure about sponsored vehicles)

I'm a former Championship and SL club director , who liassed with Steve Williams at the RFL on salary cap issues when it was introduced to the lower tiers in 2004 

[GUBRATS]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Weighting doesn't only apply to where you live, it is where your job is. If their job is 3 or 4 months in Toronto it is reasonable to expect higher costs during that period. 

Dave , what costs do the players have when in Toronto ?

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Dave , what costs do the players have when in Toronto ?

I'm sure they buy things in that 4 month period like anyone else does. Its not a 4 month all inclusive holiday.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Damien said:

I'm sure they buy things in that 4 month period like anyone else does. Its not a 4 month all inclusive holiday.

Isn't it ? , Have you spoken to any of them ?