The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Isn't it £175k but I get your point.

 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

No, I was quoting £175k earlier in the week (not sure if it used to be that) but it now says £150k online.

£175k is the minimum actual salary of a player to allow him to be classed as a 'marquee' meaning the minimum gain from using this dispensation is £25k.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

200k is a lot for Lussick. There are likely no more than 15-20 players earning that in SL, if that many. 

You have invented 300k to 400k and then decided it's the minimum.

You keep telling us that they are paying over the odds, and then tell me that they have got a bargain of a marquee player in Lussick, and despite it being described as lucrative in the Aussie media, it is actually a fair bit lower than he was actually paid 6 years ago. Bit inconsistent that one.

Reports around Leutele suggested a $1m+ deal - making his salary c£260k if it was at the $1m level. 

So even if that was the salary instead of the £300k, that is still a decent amount of cap for them to fill a squad.

But again, the argument that they are paying over the odds, but their marquee players are on modest wages doesn't add up.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Your argument is that they have managed the cap poorly, now you are arguing they should pay 3 fringe young players 200k and that is good cap management.

Despite them already over paying for the other squad members

And they are expected to build that squad on a lower cap than other teams are.operating to

How have they overpaid? So let's assume they can afford to pay squad member 23, 24 and 25 c£70k each (if we accept your low number). What kind of salary do you think other club's 23,24 and 25 are on?

Your use of lower numbers is contradictory to the theory they are paying over the odds.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well let's look st Warrington players 23, 24, 25 at Warrington are Keenan Brand, Sammy Kibula and Matty Ashton. How many of those do you think are on 70k?

It's your argument that they are paying over the odds. I dont think that the first 23 players they have are massively different to what others would pay. But even if its only 5k per player more to get them to toronto that's 115k for those players plus the lower cap they operate to and that has stopped them filling out their squad with the fringe players they need and they would need to pay substantially more for them as these players are barely full time at a Leeds or warrington or wakefield but would need to be completely full time at Toronto

So what is TWP's cap limit, I have asked on numerous occasions but no one has proffered an answer.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well let's look st Warrington players 23, 24, 25 at Warrington are Keenan Brand, Sammy Kibula and Matty Ashton. How many of those do you think are on 70k?

It's your argument that they are paying over the odds. I dont think that the first 23 players they have are massively different to what others would pay. But even if its only 5k per player more to get them to toronto that's 115k for those players plus the lower cap they operate to and that has stopped them filling out their squad with the fringe players they need and they would need to pay substantially more for them as these players are barely full time at a Leeds or warrington or wakefield but would need to be completely full time at Toronto

So you are supporting my point. I don't think those three Wire players are on £70k, so if that is the budget TWP had to fill those slots, surely they had plenty?

And it isn't my argument that they are paying over the odds, it is everybody else claiming that, and I am cool with that as I don't know their salaries, so have advocated a weighting. If they are not paying more though, then it is all good. 

But even using your numbers, they had 22 players signed, and £200 remaining. They chose to make it 23 players signed and £0 remaining. 

 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The same as everyone elses. It's just impossible for them to use the dispensations others use

There is one key dispensation that they will struggle to access, maybe two.

Firstly there is the maximum of £100k for producing players - I believe this is £5k per player. Wire have 5 in their first 25, giving them £25k, not sure if it goes up to the full 30, I assume not, as you can just name 40 and get plenty dispensation.

Secondly, the marquee amount is only £75k for club developed marquee.  I assume few clubs will be utilising that one., but it is a nice one to use if you can. 

The dispensations are modest, but I'd be supportive of the £100k maximum being given to cover the above two.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So you are supporting my point. I don't think those three Wire players are on £70k, so if that is the budget TWP had to fill those slots, surely they had plenty?

And it isn't my argument that they are paying over the odds, it is everybody else claiming that, and I am cool with that as I don't know their salaries, so have advocated a weighting. If they are not paying more though, then it is all good. 

But even using your numbers, they had 22 players signed, and £200 remaining. They chose to make it 23 players signed and £0 remaining. 

 

I don't think its the dichotomy its being presented as.

Toronto have mismanaged, but not by as much as people are reckoning. I agree with others that squad no. 1-23 they aren't massively over, but its the following 7 or so players that will likely play first team rugby for other sides that TWP simply don't have either the infrastructure or the ability to have. Not being able to take advantage of home grown dispensations also significantly impacts their squad capacity.

Essentially, whilst also mismanaging their squad they also have no way to underpay academy players in the top 25 which SL clubs (particularly the top ones) definitely do. Its a critical flaw of the cap for both players and up and coming challenger clubs.

 

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why you are ignoring the fact that TWP already had 2 marquee players, meaning that SBW's signing meant that more than £150k was added to the cap in total.

It is likely that TWP had a t least £300k free on the cap when they signed SBW. At least.

As I see it the SBW signing was a completely out of the blue opportunity for them, they must have weighed up the losses to the squad to the gains to the clubs stature, appeal and overall public perception. I very much doubt it was ever a plan to take him, so would they have been running with there 2 current Marquee players? quite possibly, meaning they could then build the squad. Its a decision they made (in my opinion) and we will see how it plays out.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I don't think its the dichotomy its being presented as.

Toronto have mismanaged, but not by as much as people are reckoning. I agree with others that squad no. 1-23 they aren't massively over, but its the following 7 or so players that will likely play first team rugby for other sides that TWP simply don't have either the infrastructure or the ability to have. Not being able to take advantage of home grown dispensations also significantly impacts their squad capacity.

Essentially, whilst also mismanaging their squad they also have no way to underpay academy players in the top 25 which SL clubs (particularly the top ones) definitely do. Its a critical flaw of the cap for both players and up and coming challenger clubs.

 

If they had a 25 man squad, that argument would wash. They had funds to sign 25 players, and spent it on 3 marquee players. In my earlier lengthier post I highlighted the two areas, one is getting your core 25 man squad, which they absolutely could have, and then there is the youth 26-30, which I certainly have sympathy over.

So what was TWP's solution?

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

As I see it the SBW signing was a completely out of the blue opportunity for them, they must have weighed up the losses to the squad to the gains to the clubs stature, appeal and overall public perception. I very much doubt it was ever a plan to take him, so would they have been running with there 2 current Marquee players? quite possibly, meaning they could then build the squad. Its a decision they made (in my opinion) and we will see how it plays out.

I agree with that. The mistake imho was the rather average use of marquee when they perhaps didn't need to. I think they could have had a strong enough squad to get promoted and then gone big on the marquee signings. 

But this is sort of my point, they could have built a deeper squad, they chose not to, rather than it being impossible to do so.

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I agree with that. The mistake imho was the rather average use of marquee when they perhaps didn't need to. I think they could have had a strong enough squad to get promoted and then gone big on the marquee signings. 

But this is sort of my point, they could have built a deeper squad, they chose not to, rather than it being impossible to do so.

My argument is its not mismanagement as others seem to want to title it, I think its a conscious decision to put the growth of the club as a public entity over the growth of the clubs squad, though that in itself carries a very big risk if they get relegated. I think the big problem they have is they dont have access to the typical squad fillers all the other SL teams do, maybe the Rochdale link up is to try and alleviate this, which will mean Dr working totally opposite between the 2 clubs as opposed to all other DR`s where the big club sends players "down" to the lower league clubs. 

[aj1908]

Well if the unthinkable happens and they do finish last it will be interesting what super league does.

If they allow them to be relegated then the game deserves whatever fate it gets.  Since they don't take any tv money leaving them there costs super league nothing 

It shows how wise it was to.have les Catalans immune from relegation 

Can someone please clone Richard Lewis 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dave T said:

If they had a 25 man squad, that argument would wash. They had funds to sign 25 players, and spent it on 3 marquee players. In my earlier lengthier post I highlighted the two areas, one is getting your core 25 man squad, which they absolutely could have, and then there is the youth 26-30, which I certainly have sympathy over.

So what was TWP's solution?

I do get that and I'm not disputing that they have mismanaged the cap (Noble shouldn't be in that role!). 

But, it is clear that to compete in SL right now under the current cap, without an extraordinary coach like Ian Watson, you need to be able to pay at least 2 if not 3 players seriously low wages whilst also getting extra cap space for home grown talent in the first team. Toronto, for both structural and realism reasons, can't do that.

I dispute that the Youth is 26-30 now (although from my own experience that these players are paid a pittance). It seems that, maybe because of the cap maybe because of other factors, the Youth players are dipping into that top 25 in most SL clubs. I'd agree with you that TWP could have bought a 25 Man roster of senior grade players within the cap if that was what every other club did, in reality though its not.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

My argument is its not mismanagement as others seem to want to title it, I think its a conscious decision to put the growth of the club as a public entity over the growth of the clubs squad, though that in itself carries a very big risk if they get relegated. I think the big problem they have is they dont have access to the typical squad fillers all the other SL teams do, maybe the Rochdale link up is to try and alleviate this, which will mean Dr working totally opposite between the 2 clubs as opposed to all other DR`s where the big club sends players "down" to the lower league clubs. 

Again, agree with this.

So what is TWP's solution? Surely they could have had cheaper fringe players out on DR almost permanently rather than playing in Academy/Reserves like other clubs will be doing?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I do get that and I'm not disputing that they have mismanaged the cap (Noble shouldn't be in that role!). 

But, it is clear that to compete in SL right now under the current cap, without an extraordinary coach like Ian Watson, you need to be able to pay at least 2 if not 3 players seriously low wages whilst also getting extra cap space for home grown talent in the first team. Toronto, for both structural and realism reasons, can't do that.

I dispute that the Youth is 26-30 now (although from my own experience that these players are paid a pittance). It seems that, maybe because of the cap maybe because of other factors, the Youth players are dipping into that top 25 in most SL clubs. I'd agree with you that TWP could have bought a 25 Man roster of senior grade players within the cap if that was what every other club did, in reality though its not.

Agree with much of this, my main disagreement is on your last paragraph, other clubs don't need to sign a full squad of experienced players as they have access to the youth, and other local players. But this isn't new news. One mitigant was to get the strongest deepest squad you could - 3 marquees contradicts that. 

I have full sympathy for not having 26+ players. I have little sympathy for not having 25.

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Again, agree with this.

So what is TWP's solution? Surely they could have had cheaper fringe players out on DR almost permanently rather than playing in Academy/Reserves like other clubs will be doing?

Maybe thats the plan behind the Rochdale link up, it would certainly make some sense to have that batch of players to call on.

[Dave T]

Just now, dkw said:

Maybe thats the plan behind the Rochdale link up, it would certainly make some sense to have that batch of players to call on.

Yep, I would have thought the plan would have been established much earlier. It really did feel like the Skolars tie-up was going to be their 'Academy', but that appears to have been abandoned.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agree with much of this, my main disagreement is on your last paragraph, other clubs don't need to sign a full squad of experienced players as they have access to the youth, and other local players. But this isn't new news. One mitigant was to get the strongest deepest squad you could - 3 marquees contradicts that. 

I have full sympathy for not having 26+ players. I have little sympathy for not having 25.

Yeah I get that, my point would be that the cut off for youth players (or at least youth player wages) is actually in the top 25.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But this is sort of my point, they could have built a deeper squad, they chose not to, rather than it being impossible to do so.

Was it done purposefully being undermanned then the plan is they appeal for public sympathy and the benevolence of their SL rivals to bend the rules to their advantage, Brian McDermott has already hinted in his comments at the Cas game that they should be treated differently.

We have not seen it with any weight yet coming out of Toronto, BUT this game has no respect of player's completing the season injury free, a few injuries accuring at the same time will be catastrophic for them, they knew the rules should they have cut their cloth to suit? 

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, dkw said:

Maybe thats the plan behind the Rochdale link up, it would certainly make some sense to have that batch of players to call on.

Rochdale are wanting promotion this season, should it come that TWP are in need of 'borrowing" player's, Andy Mazey has not gone there to invest money to allow his best players to go and play for another club.

[Dave T]

 

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I get that, my point would be that the cut off for youth players (or at least youth player wages) is actually in the top 25.

Which would suggest that TWP had compiled a 22 man squad for less money than some other clubs pay for theirs. Because as we know their 23rd signing used up the last £200k or so. 

But tbh, it sounds like we are agreed, TWP haven't done a good job budgeting, and there are grounds for some sensible allowances for dispensation.

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I get that, my point would be that the cut off for youth players (or at least youth player wages) is actually in the top 25.

Do you mean nil contribution on the cap Tommy for youth player's? 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do you mean nil contribution on the cap Tommy for youth player's? 

No Harry I mean that youth team level wages, ie less than £17k, even under £10k, are being paid to players in the top 25 of SL squads. So they count on the cap, but are relatively insignificant sums.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

52 minutes ago, dkw said:

Maybe thats the plan behind the Rochdale link up, it would certainly make some sense to have that batch of players to call on.

Only ONE player can DR upwards so not much help from that tie up...…..

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Which would suggest that TWP had compiled a 22 man squad for less money than some other clubs pay for theirs. Because as we know their 23rd signing used up the last £200k or so. 

But tbh, it sounds like we are agreed, TWP haven't done a good job budgeting, and there are grounds for some sensible allowances for dispensation.

Might well have been less than that as they loaned out Greg Worthington around the same time...….