The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Canis Lupus said:

So far it looks like SNW only as sky have the rights. If TWP can get the rights for NA things may change but a little late in the day now. Hence no CBC or Game TV.

What type of channels/networks are these three being mentioned here? Who has biggest reach etc? 

[Kayakman]

2 hours ago, Canis Lupus said:

So far it looks like SNW only as sky have the rights. If TWP can get the rights for NA things may change but a little late in the day now. Hence no CBC or Game TV.

Not good....this might be the chaotic year until the season is over and things finally get settled.  Its like you got two guys chest to chest or something...push...push.  

My tale on it is Sky will give in but only if there are very good viewership numbers coming out of Australia.

[aj1908]

2 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Not good....this might be the chaotic year until the season is over and things finally get settled.  Its like you got two guys chest to chest or something...push...push.  

My tale on it is Sky will give in but only if there are very good viewership numbers coming out of Australia.

Why would good numbers from Australia make sky want to give it up ? Surely the opposite 

Super league Gets less than super rugby or a league 

[TboneFromTO]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What type of channels/networks are these three being mentioned here? Who has biggest reach etc? 

Biggest reach is CBC. Sportsnet world is a pricey channel.  If regular Sportsnet aired it it would be more widely available

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

Huddersfield and Leeds.

 

Bet that was exciting ?

[Oxford]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

In fact that is literally the intention of the salary cap to start with. To restrict some clubs for the benefit of others.

I don't think that was the intention but I do believe it has been made to work that way but as with most things convincing people it's not fair is almost impossible.

[Oxford]

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well it was one of its stated aims to even up the competition. It can only do that if it acts as a brake on those who can spend more, to their detriment, and to the benefit of the ones who cant.

 

If it was a blunt tool that was applied for everyone exactly the same it would be fairer than it is in its present form.

The reason TWP will probably have their appeal rejected is the fear of not still being at the top from some and fright at being left behind by others. It's the TGG way!

Let's hope I'm wrong.

[aj1908]

6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

If it was a blunt tool that was applied for everyone exactly the same it would be fairer than it is in its present form.

The reason TWP will probably have their appeal rejected is the fear of not still being at the top from some and fright at being left behind by others. It's the TGG way!

Let's hope I'm wrong.

Umm they've increased their cap  by 5 percent 

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

What type of channels/networks are these three being mentioned here? Who has biggest reach etc? 

Sportsnet (akin to Sky Sports or BT Sports) as CBC Sports (similar to BBC Sports) was online only & Game TV is a very minor Player, something like our Challenge TV Channel. 

[Oxford]

19 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Umm they've increased their cap  by 5 percent 

Good but I thought that still had to be agreed!

If they have I'm glad to be wrong.

[Oxford]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure it would be any fairer. 

The fact is we make these dispensations and allowances because of the unfairness of it as a blunt tool

That makes it unfair in other ways but it's unfair and doesnt fit with the structure we have

 

I think the dispensations that stand at present were put in place because better foo clubs insisted their better offness needed recognition in the cap.

[Oxford]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why should leeds spending be dictated by Salfords affordability?

Then it's not a Salary Cap because it has inbuilt unfairness right from the outset.

I f you're going to argue some clubs deserve more then all it does for the most part is stop over spending and in no way creates a level playing field.

Expansion teams are a very different matter but that would defy SC logic too!

[TIWIT]

So basically we're f****ed because of Sky's greed. Doesnt speak well for the ongoing relationship between Super League and Sky.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

No it wouldnt. 

Structural bias means you can take a blanket approach to rules that treat clubs differently.

I don't know why people are still pushing this strange argument that rules dont treat clubs differently even if they are applied equally.

In fact that is literally the intention of the salary cap to start with. To restrict some clubs for the benefit of others.

Your argument is jumbled.

There is a difference to treating all clubs fairly and treating all clubs the same. 

I am all for treating clubs differently, as long as they are all treated fairly. It was others asking for the same treatment, but then also to be treated differently.

[Chamey]

3 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Not good....this might be the chaotic year until the season is over and things finally get settled.  Its like you got two guys chest to chest or something...push...push.  

My tale on it is Sky will give in but only if there are very good viewership numbers coming out of Australia.

I heard that TWP were supposed to be on TSN, but then the sky issue sabotaged that and a competitor stepped in. Yet another case of the heartlands holding expansion back.

[TBone]

2 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Umm they've increased their cap  by 5 percent 

Have they? I know it was a proposal but not that it had been passed...

 

Quote

However, it’s understood that some clubs are vehemently against the proposal and have informed both the RFL and Elstone that they do not support their suggestion.

When contacted by League Express, the RFL said the proposals would only be finalised if clubs were to agree.

 

[TBone]

1 hour ago, TIWIT said:

So basically we're f****ed because of Sky's greed. Doesnt speak well for the ongoing relationship between Super League and Sky.

Greed?

Sky paid £100m+ for the rights, it/it's new owner can do with them what it likes.

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, TBone said:

Greed?

Sky paid £100m+ for the rights, it/it's new owner can do with them what it likes.

That is a very bad attitude...something needs to be worked out or Sky can pound salt...the viewers from Australia are not going to be happy if they cannot watch the Wolfpack.

[TBone]

Not sure why Sky would be bothered about viewers in Australia (other than those of its news channel). Comcast, its new owner, might?

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, TBone said:

Have they? I know it was a proposal but not that it had been passed...

 

 

It would be really interesting to see which clubs that are against and who are for. I'd guess from the media and recent history that Hull FC are one of those against. Of course there can be differences between the Club board and the fans. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It would be really interesting to see which clubs that are against and who are for. I'd guess from the media and recent history that Hull FC are one of those against. Of course there can be differences between the Club board and the fans. 

Add KR to the list as well. Must be something in the water round these parts. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-toronto-wolfpack-mcdermott-3782122

[GUBRATS]

Having some clubs in SL and some not is inherently unfair 

Away you go Scotchy 

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No there isnt. You can apply the rules the same but you are still treating clubs differently.

You could have a rule that said all games not played on your home continent give you a 40+ head start. You can apply that rule equally but It does not treat all clubs equally

Applying the same rules, in the same way to all clubs is not a neutral position. It is not a position of equality. Ignoring structural bias that is created by the rules is a choice to benefit one side over another

If clubs vote to ignore the bias created by the SC and not allow Toronto a dispensation they haven't voted to treat the clubs equally. They haven't voted to treat all clubs the same. they have voted in favour of disadvantaging one club through enacting a rule which disproportionately affects Toronto

Again, your point is all jumbled and I've not a clue why you are even making it. 

Speak to those TWP fans who are complaining about being treated differently whilst demanding to be treated differently. 

[TboneFromTO]

1 hour ago, Chamey said:

I heard that TWP were supposed to be on TSN, but then the sky issue sabotaged that and a competitor stepped in. Yet another case of the heartlands holding expansion back.

I want to agree with you, however that sounds like sky found more money elsewhere, which is unfortunately their right as the rights holders

Toronto (as much as I want them to) do not have control of their TV rights while in SL, so if sky can get more money from SNworld then from TSN (or found out how much TSN would have paid twp Vs how much they would have charged twp for the rights) and thought it was good good money sense to do so,good for them.

Canadians get your wallets out and pay for the sub! (Sorry!)

[Derwent]

8 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Add KR to the list as well. Must be something in the water round these parts. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-toronto-wolfpack-mcdermott-3782122

What is incorrect or unfactual about Hudgell's comments ?