The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

FTFY

There is an easy solution. 

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, Oxford said:

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?

I'm talking about compromise within the game, not on the forum. 

Apparently everything should suit Canadians wanting to play rugger on a Saturday morning! Anything suiting the existing structures is backward and small time. 

[TIWIT]

1 hour 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'.

The biggest sporting league in the world, the NFL, requires one very rich owner to front the team. He or she can and do often have minority partners but there has to one rich man to sign the cheques. Or this being the NFL, count the money.

The other leagues are generally the same regarding one-man ownership. Oddly, the biggest exception to that rule is here in Toronto where the face of the ownership of MLSE is Larry Tannenbaum and he's just a millionaire who owns 20%.The remainder is equally shared by warring media giants Bell and Rogers who rather than get into a ruinous bidding war for MLSE agreed to be partners. Tannenbaum doesn't have the power either. It was further agreed that all major decisions have to be first thrashed out in the boardroom and only then presented publicly by 'The Board'.

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

We are a small time game that has been left behind by other sports

Er makes you wonder what we're all doing here wasting our time, doesn't it?

 

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm talking about compromise within the game, not on the forum. 

If you're looking for compromise you might need to look somewhere outside the UK for a while! I think we've mislaid the instructions.

 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

The biggest sporting league in the world, the NFL, requires one very rich owner to front the team. He or she can and do often have minority partners but there has to one rich man to sign the cheques. Or this being the NFL, count the money.

The other leagues are generally the same regarding one-man ownership. Oddly, the biggest exception to that rule is here in Toronto where the face of the ownership of MLSE is Larry Tannenbaum and he's just a millionaire who owns 20%.The remainder is equally shared by warring media giants Bell and Rogers who rather than get into a ruinous bidding war for MLSE agreed to be partners. Tannenbaum doesn't have the power either. It was further agreed that all major decisions have to be first thrashed out in the boardroom and only then presented publicly by 'The Board'.

With very few exceptions - and I know they exist - if any of those very rich owners decided to pull out the club/franchise would not vanish. The value of it (in some cases), the history and fanaticism (in others) mean that that's just not going to happen.

If the money man walked out on virtually any northern hemisphere rugby club then the club would be gone for good. Toronto included.

[TIWIT]

1 hour 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 would argue that staying that extra day after the game to rest and recuperate would benefit an athlete far more than sitting on a bus/plane/bus for hours on end. In fact I would think it obvious.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

No, you literally said that in the NRL Argyle would have to fly more teams over.

He wouldnt. 

As for your 2nd part, I think you have confused me with someone else.

I didn't. I said (and have consistently said) the costs would be higher.

I haven't. You said blocks are common in sports. Once again that may be true, only one that comes to mind is Super Rugby, but one of those sports is not the NRL as I pointed out.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

That's not the point 

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

 

I'm not saying I agree with them not getting anything out of it, but in an 11 v 1 scenario its clear who's going to have to do the most compromising.

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

The biggest sporting league in the world, the NFL, requires one very rich owner to front the team. He or she can and do often have minority partners but there has to one rich man to sign the cheques. Or this being the NFL, count the money.

The other leagues are generally the same regarding one-man ownership. Oddly, the biggest exception to that rule is here in Toronto where the face of the ownership of MLSE is Larry Tannenbaum and he's just a millionaire who owns 20%.The remainder is equally shared by warring media giants Bell and Rogers who rather than get into a ruinous bidding war for MLSE agreed to be partners. Tannenbaum doesn't have the power either. It was further agreed that all major decisions have to be first thrashed out in the boardroom and only then presented publicly by 'The Board'.

Having one main owner doesnt bother me tbh, it is what it is, but it is rightly called out as a risk. Where teams are well established in huge Leagues it is less of an issue, there will usually be someone to replace an owner, for a relatively unknown sport in virgin territory like Toronto however that risk becomes higher. I'm with the RFL that the risks are worth taking as you have little to lose, I don't see the same appetite from a risk averse NRL. 

[TheReaper]

 

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm talking about compromise within the game, not on the forum. 

Apparently everything should suit Canadians wanting to play rugger on a Saturday morning! Anything suiting the existing structures is backward and small time. 

I guess you missed the part I said I'm NOT saying it should be changed, and where I said the general sports fan is likely more valuable,.

56 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

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.

...

I'm not saying anything should be changed on my account.

 

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, TheReaper said:

 

I guess you missed the part I said I'm NOT saying it should be changed, and where I said the general sports fan is likely more valuable,.

 

 

I hadn't read your post. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

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.

 

Looking at attendances though this looks like it hasn't affected them too much has it?

I'd be wary of an RL club wanting its Kick Offs put back because of amateur RU. My team play mostly friday nights which is fortunate as like you I have either been playing rugby or working at weekends, that said when they do play weekends I don't moan I either just accept I can't go or get the time off and prioritise that way.

I'm not against Toronto having 4pm kick offs I enjoyed those on TV. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I can just imagine the support from certain people on here if the NRL team asked to change the kick off time for the WCC or the kangaroos asked for a change in the kick off time for the ashes because they wanted to get a more convenient flight 

I wonder Dave, were you critical or supportive of the NRLs 'player welfare concerns' for the denver test? 

This is a really weird point. There are limited flights and a schedule needs to work. Playing on a Saturday meets the player welfare need (as it did for the Test match) as it potentially allows for a window of 9 days prior and 8 days after the game. 

I'm not sure why you find scheduling such an issue. It is one of the things that has been learnt during this bedding in period, pretty successfully, but you use it as a negative to moan about the game again. 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

I would argue that staying that extra day after the game to rest and recuperate would benefit an athlete far more than sitting on a bus/plane/bus for hours on end. In fact I would think it obvious.

You say that, but that is how clubs used to treat away trips to Catalans. For a number of years now however the consensus has been to fly in and fly out on the same day. Obviously there's not the same jetlag issue, but surely being back in the timezone you'll be playing your next game in asap is logical.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

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.

 

How many people does this affect would you say? 

[CanadianRugger]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

How many people does this affect would you say? 

Easily a couple of thousand.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Easily a couple of thousand.

So a potential customer base of a couple of thousand?

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It's not wierd at all. They are pro sportsmen they should play when fans and broadcasters watch it. Not when they can get a convenient flight home. 

There is a direct flight from toronto to Manchester on a Monday evening, the inconvenience of a day in toronto shouldn't mean that we need to kick off at a less than ideal time on a saturday or Sunday. 

Why is 1.30pm (6.30pm) such an issue?

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

You've been told by canadians why it is. It's also not peak tv time

We cant scratch our heads about why broadcasters arent falling over themselves to give us millions when we prioritise convenient flights home over broadcast slots. It's incredibly small time

So somebody complained that they can't play rugger and go to the match? And somebody else suggested this population is a couple of thousand.

If we announced midday kickoffs this year and somebody in Cas made the same complaint you would use that as an example of the game being small time.

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

No, it was your supposition that games are held at that time because of the convenient time of flights home.

.

Was it? Evidence please.

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Your exact words were

You've just listed places the NRL hasn't put an expansion team into. NZ was ARL, Melbourne SL and the other 2 don't exist. Lower levels fantastic but not the NRL is it.

So Argyle has to now double his investment by having to increase spending in the playing squad alone and then fly more teams out to Canada and house them (at a higher cost).

I don't think you've thought this through...

So what? They fly the same number of teams out then in this imaginary situation thats never going to happen?

Do you feel accomplished?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure why you have been so emotionally affected by me pointing out that they wouldnt fly more teams out in the NRL. Its not really controversial

Its a minor aspect that detracts from the overall points that make both Toronto being in the NRL and the NRL being more accomodating than SL a joke. I don't see why you'd pursue it so? 

[Lowdesert]

Another Groundhog Day.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

So no then. A team flying into Toronto from Oz would have to consider flight times just as they do from the UK. The poster suggested that wouldn't be a consideration from Oz. I assume there are no buses to Sydney.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Because the NRL are a professional organisation playing professional sport. 

Flight times arent really a consideration for professional organisation 

Whereas, as this whole business has exposed, SL is a small time, small-minded organization.