The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Bert1 said:

Franchising seems the best way forward.

Franchising won't fly within the existing RL structure in the UK, it can only be done outside of that structure via a whole new league set up to raise the game's profile and break down the stereotypes about it.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Smudger06 said:

£15k is not the minimum. Its lower, a lot lower. Where as this figure come from? 

It states in the regulations that a player who plays a Salary Cap relevant game must have a minimum salary of £15k. The regulation is as detailed as that, so whether it refers to a salary in writing (for cap value purposes), or whether it is a real world stipulation is unclear. 

There was some talk recently about clubs breaching minimum wage (may have been you or maybe Tommygilf who brought it up), I wondered whether this was a regulation to avoid that situation. 

Obviously if players 26 onwards do not play a game they don't show on the cap at all. 

[Bert1]

19 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

And then more true RL fans alienated from the game.

Why? 

[Gooleboy]

11 minutes ago, Bert1 said:

Why? 

Supporters of Clubs outside the SL will be watching meaningless games with no P+L and will vote with their feet. It wasn't a roaring success last time round. Many meaningless matches in the SL as well. Some Clubs were just going through the motions when they knew they couldn't make the Play Offs.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do any of them Tex? they spend far far more time in the UK than they will do in Canada. 

A few of the aussies lived there last year. I think they’d be better off making that a stipulation. Live there, train there, be part of the community.

[TboneFromTO]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes, you are misunderstanding my stance. My stance isn't that it is correct, more that players will be on the minimum. I am not passing judgement on it. 

If the minimum is £15k, I'm not sure why that means he will have a 2nd job, when 18 year olds in call centres, retail, restaurants etc will be on £15k.

On your last paragraph. I'm not claiming that clubs have part-timers making up their first team squad. I have stated my position that TWP should have additional allowances which would allow them to fill the squad. 

Soz dave, I was on pregame mode (now post game mode) and it seemed like you were thinking 15kpa and being shown in sky (even once) was ok.  Again I'm in high beer mode so if that's not the take then ignore me.

@GUBRATS I personally believe apprentices to be of the academy/reserves grade (or that's where I believe they should be if they are learning) 

@scotchy1 think we are on the same page here.  Seems to me some SL players are on the same/worse wages as non league football players.  Which is an absolute shambles

  

[GUBRATS]

40 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

A few of the aussies lived there last year. I think they’d be better off making that a stipulation. Live there, train there, be part of the community.

' Lived  ' there ? , For how long ? , That's the problem 

[GUBRATS]

24 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Soz dave, I was on pregame mode (now post game mode) and it seemed like you were thinking 15kpa and being shown in sky (even once) was ok.  Again I'm in high beer mode so if that's not the take then ignore me.

@GUBRATS I personally believe apprentices to be of the academy/reserves grade (or that's where I believe they should be if they are learning) 

@scotchy1 think we are on the same page here.  Seemts to me some SL players are on the same/worse wages as non league football players.  Which is an absolute shambles

  

Yes apprentices will play the bulk of their games in academies or reserves , but ultimately until they step up , nobody knows if they are good enough , and the enevitable injuries in RL means they will be asked to step up 

[TboneFromTO]

26 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes apprentices will play the bulk of their games in academies or reserves , but ultimately until they step up , nobody knows if they are good enough , and the enevitable injuries in RL means they will be asked to step up 

Seems like a fundamental disagreement on this. Which is fine!  I personally believe these athletes should be paid more (due to risk of long term injury,). When they step up, they should be paid a full time wage (prorated for their amount of games- but I appreciate this would over complicate salary negotiations)  

I personally believe that they should be paid much higher then teachers ,(starting wage 23kpa) due to the short career and therefor shorter earning potential. 

But that's just my opinion and doesn't reflect the current market (, especially since my personal opinion is that every player down to league one should be making atleast that much). 

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

yet the cap values given in the example table from player 23 onwards are all listed as less than 15k

Yep, however that table gave the example as totalling £1.58 (or something) and I think that table has been in for years, so assumed this is a legacy table. 

[GUBRATS]

32 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Seems like a fundamental disagreement on this. Which is fine!  I personally believe these athletes should be paid more (due to risk of long term injury,). When they step up, they should be paid a full time wage (prorated for their amount of games- but I appreciate this would over complicate salary negotiations)  

I personally believe that they should be paid much higher then teachers ,(starting wage 23kpa) due to the short career and therefor shorter earning potential. 

But that's just my opinion and doesn't reflect the current market (, especially since my personal opinion is that every player down to league one should be making atleast that much). 

 

Yes , they should 

But 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, TboneFromTO said:

Soz dave, I was on pregame mode (now post game mode) and it seemed like you were thinking 15kpa and being shown in sky (even once) was ok.  Again I'm in high beer mode so if that's not the take then ignore me.

@GUBRATS I personally believe apprentices to be of the academy/reserves grade (or that's where I believe they should be if they are learning) 

@scotchy1 think we are on the same page here.  Seems to me some SL players are on the same/worse wages as non league football players.  Which is an absolute shambles

  

No problem. On the apprentices point though, that is where these players outside the 25 are playing. They are cover for injuries, and whilst most clubs use around 27/28 players, it is usually a small number of games played by these lower ranked players. 

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

Seems like a fundamental disagreement on this. Which is fine!  I personally believe these athletes should be paid more (due to risk of long term injury,). When they step up, they should be paid a full time wage (prorated for their amount of games- but I appreciate this would over complicate salary negotiations)  

I personally believe that they should be paid much higher then teachers ,(starting wage 23kpa) due to the short career and therefor shorter earning potential. 

But that's just my opinion and doesn't reflect the current market (, especially since my personal opinion is that every player down to league one should be making atleast that much). 

 

Whilst I agree with your principle that we should pay players a good wage, we should remember that RL players don't have short 'careers'. They don't retire on pensions at 35.

And I fundamentally disagree that an 18 year old RL player deserves a higher wage than a teacher. 

If the market dictates that fine, but we shouldn't artificially inflate it to be so. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

If the market dictates that fine, but we shouldn't artificially inflate it to be so. 

The market cant dictate that though with the salary cap. Salaries are deflated as a result.

[Smudger06]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

It states in the regulations that a player who plays a Salary Cap relevant game must have a minimum salary of £15k. The regulation is as detailed as that, so whether it refers to a salary in writing (for cap value purposes), or whether it is a real world stipulation is unclear. 

There was some talk recently about clubs breaching minimum wage (may have been you or maybe Tommygilf who brought it up), I wondered whether this was a regulation to avoid that situation. 

Obviously if players 26 onwards do not play a game they don't show on the cap at all. 

Dave you are correct mate, operational rules 2020. 

[TIWIT]

There's nothing preventing a retired rugby player - or any athlete for that matter - from going on to become a teacher.

I don't know what they get paid in the UK but teachers here are paid around $90,000/year. And they're all squabbling with the government for more money.

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

The market cant dictate that though with the salary cap. Salaries are deflated as a result.

I'm loathe to go over the salary cap debate again, I can see both sides, but whilst I am bored of the word sustainability in RL, it is there for a reason. Look at the basket case of another similar sport, and look how we have the likes of huge RL clubs like Bradford going belly up with modest losses. 

But I find even the concept that a young lad making his debut at 17 or 18 should be on more than teachers anyway. And that is not me dismissing the efforts and talent of our players, they are far braver than me!!!! 

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

Dave you are correct mate, operational rules 2020. 

As I say, it doesn't answer my questions as it is light on detail, but it isn't a rule I have noticed before. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, TIWIT said:

There's nothing preventing a retired rugby player - or any athlete for that matter - from going on to become a teacher.

I don't know what they get paid in the UK but teachers here are paid around $90,000/year. And they're all squabbling with the government for more money.

Spot on, as a sport we should be looking to pay players a fair wage, but the argument that their career is over at 35 is flawed. 

More than ever there seems to be more focus on post-playing career and setting players up for success. 

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

it is hypocritical to argue that promotion and relegation is necessary for clubs to find their level and that the level of the top should be restricted.

It is a recipe for stagnation. EIther we take a centralised approach of managing expenditure to create the best competition or we allow clubs to rise and fall according to their own abilities and let the chips fall where they may.

 

You avoided my question Scotchy, I am really interested to see your answer of how a league would look and the teams populating it if the cap was abolished.

And I am not sure what you mean by "a centralised approach of managing expenditure" please explain.

[GUBRATS]

There is no argument that RL players should be paid more than they are , they should , but basically the sport cannot afford much more than it currently pays , there are those who will argue it can , and those who suggest significant geographical expansion will provide that money 

This most likely would require massive changes in structure and does have issues attached to that , not an easy solution 

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

A few of the aussies lived there last year. I think they’d be better off making that a stipulation. Live there, train there, be part of the community.

Yes the Aussies lived there when the fixtures were in Toronto as did the Brits, but they spend over 9 months of the year in the UK. 

[Man of Kent]

Toronto’s next four games are Leeds away, Wakefield at York (hopefully), Huddersfield away and Catalans away.

KR have Wigan away, Wire at home, Saints away and FC at home.

If both sides have more than two competition points on the board by the time Toronto play their first game at Lamport (Hull FC on 18 April) they’ll have done well. 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

The salary cap creates an artificial bias in that process meaning that the cream doesn't rise to the top and instead the game stagnates as better run and better financed and more innovative clubs are held back for the benefit of less well run, poorer financed and less innovative clubs. 

What is the evidence that this is the case? I ask this because when I think of all the times TGG could have moved forward in a positive constructive way this wasn't even suggested as a reason and the influence of the bigger clubs has always been far greater at these times than it should've been. And most often those bigger clubs have prevented developments, and have seemed always to be on the side of conservatism.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Under centralised approach clubs would be limited in their spending

So a Cap then?