The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Man of Kent]

Just now, Smudger06 said:

What I've noticed is the delusional will rip apart and ridicule any governing body, any league, any club or any fan that seems be in the way of their vision. 

The dreamers will respect and even suggest ways of integrating what already exists in this sport into their hopes and ideas. 

If I was David Argyle, I'd be wondering if I had the right people running the rugby side of my club (Brian McDermott excepted) because their recruitment is a catastrophe.

The way a depleted Cas pack sliced through the Puppypack on Sunday does not augur well. I fear for them when they play Saints and Hull.

[aj1908]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

If I was David Argyle, I'd be wondering if I had the right people running the rugby side of my club (Brian McDermott excepted) because their recruitment is a catastrophe.

The way a depleted Cas pack sliced through the Puppypack on Sunday does not augur well. I fear for them when they play Saints and Hull.

Puppypack.

Oh that's a good one.  Excellent bait!

[Tommygilf]

49 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

The Nrl is fairly Insular though 

The only real place they are looking at now is here 

Thank god we've accepted that! The RFL, for all their flaws, are much more open to outsiders coming in.

[aj1908]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Thank god we've accepted that! The RFL, for all their flaws, are much more open to outsiders coming in.

yes thats exactly what i said.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Thank god we've accepted that! The RFL, for all their flaws, are much more open to outsiders coming in.

I think the biggest thing here on this particular side debate is that the NRL wouldn't put a club with such a dependence on one stakeholder straight into the NRL. The RFL have accepted this as a bit of a necessity, but the NRL would be far less likely to put a club in that is built on sand foundations imho. 

And that isn't a criticism of TWP or the RFL, it is simply where the club is at this moment because it has been built top-down. But it will probably take another decade or so to be close to being a strong 'club'.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

The NRL play fewer home games so they would fly fewer teams out there 

NRL have more teams and play at least 11 home games

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dave T said:

I think the biggest thing here on this particular side debate is that the NRL wouldn't put a club with such a dependence on one stakeholder straight into the NRL. The RFL have accepted this as a bit of a necessity, but the NRL would be far less likely to put a club in that is built on sand foundations imho. 

And that isn't a criticism of TWP or the RFL, it is simply where the club is at this moment because it has been built top-down. But it will probably take another decade or so to be close to being a strong 'club'.

Totally agree, and I think that's a fine scenario to be in realistically with RL in the northern hemisphere. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Which is fewer than we do

Its exactly the same number Toronto will be playing at Lamport this season.

[aj1908]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the biggest thing here on this particular side debate is that the NRL wouldn't put a club with such a dependence on one stakeholder straight into the NRL. The RFL have accepted this as a bit of a necessity, but the NRL would be far less likely to put a club in that is built on sand foundations imho. 

And that isn't a criticism of TWP or the RFL, it is simply where the club is at this moment because it has been built top-down. But it will probably take another decade or so to be close to being a strong 'club'.

nathan tinkler says hello

[TheReaper]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Toronto's home games are at 1.30pm (Canadian time) on a Saturday (Wigan game seems to be an exception). Just like Catalans were given a consistent Saturday dinner-time slot.

So I'm not really sure what you are referring to.

Which really sucks for anyone who actually plays rugby here. 

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

How much do you think they would get from Canada rights?

CFL teams get a round $5 million CAD. I'd consider that the ceiling until at least 5-10 years of consistent exceptional ratings.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

But without the additional expense of hosting 3 games in the UK in rented stadia.

I bet the cost of sharing Headingley and York and renting Warrington is far less than finding a new sponsor - Air TRANSAT(lantic) are hardly going to sponsor a team to fly to the pacific - and spending 3 times as much on the salary cap and spending 24 hours on said new plane sponsor with at least 1 transfer each week. Unless the NRL would take the extra-ordinary move (for them) to allow the wolfpack 1 month home blocks.

[aj1908]

Just to clarify I responded to dave t saying the rfl have been accommodating towards the wolfpack 

I threw a hypothetical that if the nrl was offered the same deal as the rfl were then they might also allow Toronto in

Ie the rfl weren't accommodating 

Then boom it went from there. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

Which really sucks for anyone who actually plays rugby here. 

Maybe, but when you are fitting into European schedules that's how it works. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No it doesnt. The european schedule doesnt preclude them putting it on at a more convenient time for the Canadian market.

Whilst you may be dismissive of actual logistical points like travel, player welfare, TV scheduling etc. the league is working in the real world where 1.30pm is a fine kickoff time in Canada and delivers 6n30pm TV schedule in the UK. 

Compromise seems to be all one way with you. Just because a Canadian fan moans about those who play Rugby find it inconvenient you are all over it, when actual players and teams find it inconvenient you mock them as small time. 

The schedule is fine. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

It wouldnt really be extra ordinary to play in blocks. It's pretty common in sports.

But none of that has relevant to what you said. Toronto in the NRL would have fewer home games as the NRL season is shorter. It's not a controversial point. 

You brought up the number of home games in response to me saying how much it would cost. I've just pointed out how any reduction in costs due to less home games is negated by massively increased salary cap, loss of sponsorship and numerous long haul (22 hour plus) flights. That's not a controversial point to most people.

Blocks may be common in "sports", but not in the NRL. The warriors have 2 games at home in a row max this season, but by all means keep on saying how an organisation that has consistently shown an unwillingness to change for expansion would suddenly do so.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dave T said:

Whilst you may be dismissive of actual logistical points like travel, player welfare, TV scheduling etc. the league is working in the real world where 1.30pm is a fine kickoff time in Canada and delivers 6n30pm TV schedule in the UK. 

Compromise seems to be all one way with you. Just because a Canadian fan moans about those who play Rugby find it inconvenient you are all over it, when actual players and teams find it inconvenient you mock them as small time. 

The schedule is fine. 

Exactly. For example another Canadian fan said 1.30 was great because it meant you could go to the wolfpack then go over the road to the Blue Jays at 4. 

[aj1908]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst you may be dismissive of actual logistical points like travel, player welfare, TV scheduling etc. the league is working in the real world where 1.30pm is a fine kickoff time in Canada and delivers 6n30pm TV schedule in the UK. 

Compromise seems to be all one way with you. Just because a Canadian fan moans about those who play Rugby find it inconvenient you are all over it, when actual players and teams find it inconvenient you mock them as small time. 

The schedule is fine. 

So Toronto moving game times to suit a UK broadcaster from which they get no money is a fair result ?

Since super league won't give them any tv money why should they care what's a good time for UK viewers ? 

 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

So Toronto moving game times to suit a UK broadcaster from which they get no money is a fair result ?

Since super league won't give them any tv money why should they care what's a good time for UK viewers ? 

 

Its not like they're playing at 9am is it?

[aj1908]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not like they're playing at 9am is it?

That's not the point 

They are being very accomadating.  When they aren't getting anything out of it.

 

[CanadianRugger]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Maybe, but when you are fitting into ENGLISH/M62 schedules that's how it works. 

FTFY

[TheReaper]

38 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Exactly. For example another Canadian fan said 1.30 was great because it meant you could go to the wolfpack then go over the road to the Blue Jays at 4. 

It seems pretty clear that the "generic sports fan" market is much larger than the "currently involved in rugby" market, so if you can't please both then catering to the larger one would make sense.

But kickoff isn't 1:30 to cater to either, it's to cater to teams who ##### about taking an extra bus on the other end of their free flight. 

1:30 pm is pretty much the only time that guarantees what should be their most open, involved and hardcore source of fans, can't attend.

It IS the primary reason I don't have TWP season seats. I would miss 6 games - over half - due to playing on the same day at the same time. Compare that to my Arrows tickets where I don't miss a single game, my Ticats tickets I miss MAYBE 1 game if we play late into August, and the CPL schedule isn't out yet but last year I missed 3 Forge FC games. As a rugby player who follows four main sports teams, TWP is by far the worst one for me to actually try to attend.

I'm not saying anything should be changed on my account. I'm just pointing out that it's specifically non-ideal, more so than even teams with absolutely nothing to do with rugby. It's worse than random chance.

 

[Oxford]

47 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Compromise seems to be all one way with you

I think that's a description of every poster, on every thread in very discussion Dave. If you're looking for compromise you might need to look somewhere outside the UK for a while!

In the meantime don't you think TWP cross a load of lines for some because they're so positive club and fans alike and this leaves TGG old stagers wondering what they up to?

[TIWIT]

3 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Nil we don't do that 

Soccer did it though it's like 10 million Aussie

If you did offer an expansion fee the nrl would wet itself 

Clubs are added at the nrl cost and they cover it from t.v. rights 

That's the exact opposite of here. New clubs pay an up-front expansion fee that is equally shared by all the existing teams. Once in the new club is just another member and gets its share of the national TV money. Except for the billionaire socialists Of the NFL who divy up their TV money equally to allow the Kansas City's to compete with the San Fanciscos. MLB, NBA and NHL teams also set up their own often quite lucrative local TV deals.

[Dave T]

53 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you want to pretend that player welfare is at risk from staying in canada for a day then fine. 

But for a pro sport it is small time and silly and should be mocked. 

These are professional sportsmen for goodness sake.

I have no idea what this post is talking about. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

So Toronto moving game times to suit a UK broadcaster from which they get no money is a fair result ?

Since super league won't give them any tv money why should they care what's a good time for UK viewers ? 

 

They are playing in the Betfred Super League.