The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, Click said:

Right, so the money that is being discussed is given from Sky to the SL clubs who decide where it should go? Not to the SL Shareholders.

Certainly sounds like investment.

Indeed. 

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

The challenge is that this isn't what the central distribution had been budgeted for. 

In the last TV deal it was agreed that each SL club would get £1.8m (for arguments sake). So 11 x UK clubs, equals £19.8m per year of TV money being invested in UK RL. The clubs aren't pilfering this money away, nobody is making money from RL. 

Once we end up with another overseas team, we then route £1.8m of that money outside of UK RL. That needs to be agreed. I have no issues with the decision being that in this round of TV deal the budgeted £19.8m per year will continue. 

People need to be very careful what they are arguing for - if TWP are in SL for 10 years, and the TV money stays the same, the argument is for the UK game to invest almost £20m over a 10 year period into Canada RL. Before TWP were mentioned I don't think anybody thought that was a good idea. 

I'm not sure why there is a belief that giving the money to TWP would be great and the right thing to do, and that the money going to the 11 existing clubs would be wasted and not deliver any benefits for the game in this country. Maybe this additional £120k or so will deliver more marketing, player development etc. 

We really need to get away from this "heartland = bad" narrative that is being created. It is no more backward than "expansion = bad". That point isn't aimed at you personally by the way Tommy.

I get your logic here Dave, and I certainly don't subscribe to the view that all expansion is inherently good. But I'm not sure we can so neatly divide money as being "invested in Canada" and "invested in the UK", and especially not neatly put the price tag on it that you do. When investment is hopefully generating returns, we also should consider where those returns are accruing. 

For instance, the vast majority of the TV money is spent on players' wages, and it's basically the same predominantly UK players whichever team is in SL. That won't change for years, if ever, so the pathway for British players to turn pro remains in place even with a foreign team. 

And after allowing him a team in Canada, the TWP's rich owner has stumped up to sign one of the world's biggest rugby players. Is that investment in Canada? Not to me, the vast benefit of that signing has been to boost the profile of British Rugby league. In fact the two RL biggest headlines this off season in British media have been due to overseas clubs. 

To work out the cost of giving the TWP a TV share, you have to work out the cost/benefits of the alternatives. 

Option A, would be SL would lose their unexpected freebie marketing budget. But would David Argyle just pocket the money? I doubt it. Perhaps he'd fund the coverage of more live games, benefitting us all. 

Option B, would be he pulls the plug. Which means a team like Fev or London ends up in SL, with fewer, cheaper Pro contacts overall, definitely no SBW, and fewer televised games. There might be a marginal boost in profile in those local areas, but it certainly didn't add up to much in London last year. 

There's loads of ways we could try to measure it, but giving TWP their TV money definitely doesn't equate to investing 1.8 mln in Canada. 

 

[Dave T]

Just now, Toby Chopra said:

 

There's loads of ways we could try to measure it, but giving TWP their TV money definitely doesn't equate to investing 1.8 mln in Canada. 

 

I agree with the points you make in your post, and my point wasn't about whether we should pay TWP, but that it is a decision that should be made by SLE and they have every right to go how they have.

On this last point though, the £1.8m that we refer to is currently money that goes into the UK game. I don't really accept that it just goes on players. We could just as easily claim this money goes on all the other costs with running RL clubs, including community engagement, player development etc. 

If we start routing these £1.8m payments to overseas clubs then we need to look at how that affects all those areas in the UK. Now you may come to the decision that there are benefits for the comp overall and will have a net benefit on the UK game, that is where my head is, but even I will admit that is based on a long term play and a pretty big leap of faith. 

We already route £1.8m to France. If another £1.8m goes to Canada, then to Ottawa, then NYC - quite soon we could be paying £35m over 5 years overseas - we need to do that in a considers way, understanding how we will reap the commercial benefits. So far we have failed miserably to do that with Catalans. 

[TboneFromTO]

35 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who do you want TB ?

Toulouse personally as a first choice, or Halifax as I enjoyed my matches at the Shay, or Oldham because I used to work there (as unlikely as that would be!) 

[Kayakman]

57 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Kayakman,

                Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to.

They belong in SL because we want to beat them again...there is no other team we like to play and beat more than Leigh....they are our true rival.  Leigh have never beaten Toronto but we have their number all right.....that is why I want Leigh in SL next year...we want to play and beat them AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....

That is why they belong in SL.

[Man of Kent]

What if SLE believes expansion without expansion of the geographical spread of the player base isn’t really expansion...?

[Toby Chopra]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree with the points you make in your post, and my point wasn't about whether we should pay TWP, but that it is a decision that should be made by SLE and they have every right to go how they have.

On this last point though, the £1.8m that we refer to is currently money that goes into the UK game. I don't really accept that it just goes on players. We could just as easily claim this money goes on all the other costs with running RL clubs, including community engagement, player development etc. 

If we start routing these £1.8m payments to overseas clubs then we need to look at how that affects all those areas in the UK. Now you may come to the decision that there are benefits for the comp overall and will have a net benefit on the UK game, that is where my head is, but even I will admit that is based on a long term play and a pretty big leap of faith. 

We already route £1.8m to France. If another £1.8m goes to Canada, then to Ottawa, then NYC - quite soon we could be paying £35m over 5 years overseas - we need to do that in a considers way, understanding how we will reap the commercial benefits. So far we have failed miserably to do that with Catalans. 

Again, I'd question your headline number of 35 mln being sent overseas. Put like that, it sound like an obviously barmy thing to do. But as before, I don't think the bald number tells us much. We have to do the cost/benenfit analysis each time. 

For instance, I wouldn't say Cats are a failure in terms of commercial benefit. In return for 1.8 million, Cats give us a financially strong SL club that can pay full cap with marquee players and (until this year) 13 extra live games to indirectly boost the value of the Sky deal, and keep us on British TVs. 

I'd suggest that there are currently no alternative British clubs that could deliver that outcome, even with a SL place and 1.8mln. None of the recently relegated SL clubs could. We shouldn't be looking at how much we can make from them, but be thankful they bring us one more financially strong club in a completion with a number of borderline basketcases. 

That said, the lack of a TV deal is a big negative for Cats and their value is a lot lower without it. 

I expect were approaching the point that further overseas team - without expansion or a TV deal - would be a a net negative. 

For sure, SLE should make the decision on a place, and on distribution. But I hope they consider all the factors, costs and benefits in such decisions. Elstone has been worryingly narrow in his assessment in my view, and I think he fails to fully see how his competition benefits from the overseas clubs we have now. 

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Again, I'd question your headline number of 35 mln being sent overseas. Put like that, it sound like an obviously barmy thing to do. But as before, I don't think the bald number tells us much. We have to do the cost/benenfit analysis each time. 

For instance, I wouldn't say Cats are a failure in terms of commercial benefit. In return for 1.8 million, Cats give us a financially strong SL club that can pay full cap with marquee players and (until this year) 13 extra live games to indirectly boost the value of the Sky deal, and keep us on British TVs. 

I'd suggest that there are currently no alternative British clubs that could deliver that outcome, even with a SL place and 1.8mln. None of the recently relegated SL clubs could. We shouldn't be looking at how much we can make from them, but be thankful they bring us one more financially strong club in a completion with a number of borderline basketcases. 

That said, the lack of a TV deal is a big negative for Cats and their value is a lot lower without it. 

I expect were approaching the point that further overseas team - without expansion or a TV deal - would be a a net negative. 

For sure, SLE should make the decision on a place, and on distribution. But I hope they consider all the factors, costs and benefits in such decisions. Elstone has been worryingly narrow in his assessment in my view, and I think he fails to fully see how his competition benefits from the overseas clubs we have now. 

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I agree with many of your points, but this isn't about whether you get the value back.

The £35m would be the number in my example and this would be hard cash that goes in. But it may be worth every penny, I have no issues with that being a route we go down. But you can't sleepwalk into that. 

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

and yet that provision wasnt put on Toulouse. 

Well we don't know how it will play out in SL if they get there, but SL clubs have generally been far more positive about investing in France and been public that they see Toulouse as a good prospect.  

Which supports my point that these aren't just distributions, they are investment decisions. They may not be the right ones, or ones that you or I would take, but that's what they are. 

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Exactly, trying to create a cost or profit centre out of 'canada' is a fools errand. The £1.8m isnt an investment, the distribution of TV money isnt an investment. 

SLE acts as agents for the club in collecting and distributing that money. As has always been the case, the shareholders can vote on the allocation of that money.

If choosing to spend money on Catalans and not Toronto isn't clear evidence of this being investment, I don't know what is. 

Choosing where to allocate money is absolutely an investment decision. 

[GUBRATS]

26 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No worse than the RFL if we are honest

But they were meant to be better

[GUBRATS]

27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Considering that not all clubs in SL have academies and some that do only pay lip service to player development it would be a hypocritical stance to take

' Hypocrisy ' is RL's stock in trade , wouldn't you say ? , Plenty on show on here 

[fairfolly]

Kayakman.

                Leigh and Toronto have a long way to go this season to find out where they deserve to be in 2021.In case you have not worked out the points system yet,you only get 2 points for beating Leigh, the problem is you have to beat a lot more of the teams to belong in S.L. next season,that is of course providing Toronto are still in S.L. and Leigh have joined you.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

So the situation you have invented with no evidence supports your point that these arent just distributions.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that Toulouse wouldnt receive that distribution?

Why would I need to provide evidence of something I haven't claimed? 

If this was a simple distribution of funds, surely TWP would get it? If you then claim it is just for shareholders, well your Broncos point messed that up too. 

SLE can decide where to invest the money. They have decided not to invest in Canada right now. They have decided to invest in Catalans. The fact they are treating these clubs differently is pretty conclusive proof that they will route the money where they see fit. 

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

They didnt choose to distribute to les Catalans. 

If you read the SL.accounts it is obvious that you are incorrect. It isnt an investment it's a distribution of tv funds whereby SLe acts as an agent of the clubs to collect and distribute that money

There is a much simpler explanation here, SL.clubs took that money for themselves in place of the 'costs' of having toronto in SL

That is what we have been told by SL chairmen.

The obvious question  is if your premise that tv funding is an investment that was already budgeted for and as such couldnt be diverted to investment in canada  why has that money been redistributed to the other 11 SL clubs. Because we know for certain that it wasnt budgeted as going to them.

The other question is if we have 1.8m budgeted for investment in france are we to.assume if Les Catalans are relegated that money would continue to go to them? What then happens to the promoted club? Do they take less? Does everyone take a lower share to give to them? After all your premise is that this money has been budgeted for investment in a certain area and cant be diverted.

Cool. You spent months here arguing that the SL clubs should demand a greater return from the Championship clubs. But now it is a solidarity payment. 

I have no desire to spend my Friday night having this pointless discussion with you. 

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Cool. You spent months here arguing that the SL clubs should demand a greater return from the Championship clubs. But now it is a solidarity payment. 

I have no desire to spend my Friday night having this pointless discussion with you. 

Well don't expect me to humour him I've got a game to go to 

[Marty Funkhouser]

41 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Considering that not all clubs in SL have academies and some that do only pay lip service to player development it would be a hypocritical stance to take

Would you like to name the SL clubs that do not run academies? And follow that up with a list of current professional players produced by the  90% of UK SL clubs that do (also include the 1 that formerly did if you like).

Then take away that number of players from the total professional pool. Even do it club by club through the entire game.

You will of course very quickly realise that without the contribution of these clubs there would in fact be no professional Rugby League game to speak of. There would certainly be no Toronto or Catalan in SL.

Where on earth do you think professional RL players come from?

[Man of Kent]

10 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Would you like to name the SL clubs that do not run academies? And follow that up with a list of current professional players produced by the  90% of UK SL clubs that do (also include the 1 that formerly did if you like).

Then take away that number of players from the total professional pool. Even do it club by club through the entire game.

You will of course very quickly realise that without the contribution of these clubs there would in fact be no professional Rugby League game to speak of. There would certainly be no Toronto or Catalan in SL.

Where on earth do you think professional RL players come from?

Don’t introduce reality into things, Marty. 

[Marty Funkhouser]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I think you have misread that.

But Salford dont run an academy, the Hull clubs didnt run their own, Hull KR have produced next to no-one since they rejoined SL

Largely SL players come from 6 or 7 SL clubs and Bradford. 

Your ignorance shines through.

There are getting on for 60 current professional players (or four full teams of pro players) that have come out of either the Hull, Hull KR or the short lived joint academy.

"Next to no-one" for Hull KR actually equals nearly 30 current professional players at various clubs from themselves to Hull FC to Toronto to Newcastle to York to Coventry. 

So a large contribution to the professional game.

Salford's former academy produced many current professional players including the excellent  Evalds,  Hankinson, Bibby (both Wigan first teamers), Johnson , Lannon amongst many others.

Without all the clubs you constantly denigrate and advocate for the demise of , there would not be much of a game left for anyone to play no matter how bright the lights or big the city.

 

 

 

[burnleywelsh]

22 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Your ignorance shines through. 

Salford's former academy produced many current professional players including the excellent  Evalds

 

 

 

Salford had nothing to do with Evalds development as a young player. He was a product of the Wigan Academy system. 

[Marty Funkhouser]

1 hour ago, burnleywelsh said:

Salford had nothing to do with Evalds development as a young player. He was a product of the Wigan Academy system. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/40407096

At Salford since he was 15 according to BBC but you are both wrong.

From the man himself...https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/niall-evalds-chris-kendall-is-the-reason-im-at-salford-23143/

Nothing to do with Wigan at all.

[burnleywelsh]

8 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/40407096

At Salford since he was 15 according to BBC but you are both wrong.

From the man himself...https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/niall-evalds-chris-kendall-is-the-reason-im-at-salford-23143/

Nothing to do with Wigan at all.

Signed on a Wigan scholarship in 2006

https://www.brighouseecho.co.uk/sport/wigan-swoop-to-sign-schoolboy-players-1-797183

[burnleywelsh]

12 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/40407096

At Salford since he was 15 according to BBC but you are both wrong.

From the man himself...https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/niall-evalds-chris-kendall-is-the-reason-im-at-salford-23143/

Nothing to do with Wigan at all.

The reason I picked up on the Evalds reference that you made, was because I remember speaking to Brian Foley (Wigan) about him. He told me that he was an extremely talented player, but there were too many fullbacks in the Wigan system ahead of him. Therefore, moves were  made to find him an alternative club. Hence the move to Salford. I accept that he developed further at Salford, but, he was a Wigan project. So you are very wrong in saying his professional development had nothing to do with Wigan.

[Marty Funkhouser]

8 minutes ago, burnleywelsh said:

The reason I picked up on the Evalds reference that you made, was because I remember speaking to Brian Foley (Wigan) about him. He told me that he was an extremely talented player, but there were too many fullbacks in the Wigan system ahead of him. Therefore, moves were  made to find him an alternative club. Hence the move to Salford. I accept that he developed further at Salford, but, he was a Wigan project. So you are very wrong in saying his professional development had nothing to do with Wigan.

His "professional development" did not have anything to do with Wigan at all. Signing scholarship forms with a club (any club) at 13 years of age has nothing to do with his "professional" development.  The lad is from Halifax, he didn't pursue it further at Wigan, went to Huddersfield at academy age, didn't make it there so ended up in Salford's academy from where he became a first team SL player. Salford developed him from not been able to get a place in Huddersfield's academy team into the player he is today.

As Wigan have now had to import a full back to replace a full back they signed from a drugs ban, whom they now see as a centre , I would suggest Wigan need to have a close look as to why Evalds could make it in Salford's academy system but not theirs. Huddersfield  might also like to ponder about what they might be able to learn from Salford.

The point still stands, Salford academy has developed some very decent SL players. Why people have this irresistible urge to kick Salford, as well as, and amongst others, I really have no idea.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned in here and I’ve missed it, but I see Roy Masters of the SMH thinks Argyl is looking to buy into the Storm now... Interesting 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/wolfpack-billionaire-in-mix-for-share-as-storm-change-ownership-model-20200220-p542qn.html