The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

But the point is that when a new team joins, they are expected to pay into the league, it costs them, whereas we are almost embarrassed to do that and our fans even expect a new club to be paid to join. 

Why do people celebrate MLS charging a bomb to join, but want us to actually pay others to join? 

This suggestion seems the obvious way.  Clubs know the offer from the word go.  Whatever it costs, that is it.

Based on our clubs histories, they will accept anything up front, readily.  If it goes to a vote, even before that.

[Lowdesert]

2 minutes ago, snoopdog said:

Yet they have still accepted this "liar" to become owner and member of the RFL ?

I dont know mate.  Always 2 sides to a story.  I rate Perez and feel he is exactly what the game needs but he is saying one thing and they are saying another.  

I doubt the word 'vision' is used too much by some SL owners.  'Make do and mend', no problem.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

This suggestion seems the obvious way.  Clubs know the offer from the word go.  Whatever it costs, that is it.

Based on our clubs histories, they will accept anything up front, readily.  If it goes to a vote, even before that.

I'm a fan of getting rid of 'noise' and things like who pays for catering is exactly that. 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I dont know mate.  Always 2 sides to a story.  I rate Perez and feel he is exactly what the game needs but he is saying one thing and they are saying another.  

I doubt the word 'vision' is used too much by some SL owners.  'Make do and mend', no problem.

There are always two sides and I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Quite frankly we have no idea what has been said or done behind closed doors and there was probably a lot of vagueness and ambiguity about what was meant. I think the RFL were happy to admit Toronto cost free and Perez was delighted to gain admittance without a lot of specifics being nailed down and a we will work it out as we go along approach.

[Harry Stottle]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's also another of those 'stories' that has become fact. Let's remember that apparently TWP had 11 investors and it wasn't just Argyle. This was 'fact' for a long time. 

Now it turns out it wasn't true and in fact it was the other clubs' fault anyway. 

It's surprising what some people want to believe when they are blinded by emotion.

[Omott91]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It's surprising what some people want to believe when they are blinded by emotion.

Or sceptical rose tinted glasses. 

[Mr Frisky]

2020 Is not a normal year or a normal season so penalties should not be enforced on TW or any other club - suerly we just want every club to survive.

As most clubs will have started looking at 2021 signings TW & SL need to confirm now what is planned for 2021 season.

I think given the circumstances we should just start afresh with the same 12 team SL as this year - with TW and no point penalty.

TW can then confirm if they plan to continue in SL and then they and other SL clubs can crack on and plan for next season.

From Lg1 and Champ fan experience a weekend away watching RL in Toronto is a great experience and while TW are still alive we should do everything to make sure they survive and play in SL as they earned the right to play at that level.

[Lowdesert]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

There are always two sides and I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Quite frankly we have no idea what has been said or done behind closed doors and there was probably a lot of vagueness and ambiguity about what was meant. I think the RFL were happy to admit Toronto cost free and Perez was delighted to gain admittance without a lot of specifics being nailed down and a we will work it out as we go along approach.

Obviously. 

The suggestion of a fee to enter is something that SL should be looking at now.  From reading posts on here (and thats all they are) the MLS type fee works.  Why not come together to agree the fee and we might find potential Owners being interested.  Could be the most lucrative thing SL has ever stumbled upon.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Obviously. 

The suggestion of a fee to enter is something that SL should be looking at now.  From reading posts on here (and thats all they are) the MLS type fee works.  Why not come together to agree the fee and we might find potential Owners being interested.  Could be the most lucrative thing SL has ever stumbled upon.

True, but new owners aren't just going to pay up loads for 1 season are they?

[Lowdesert]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

True, but new owners aren't just going to pay up loads for 1 season are they?

Obviously not Tom.  I was suggesting a fee to enter the competition.  Better people than me can quantify the requirements for each league.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

Obviously not Tom.  I was suggesting a fee to enter the competition.  Better people than me can quantify the requirements for each league.

Fair enough, could be problematic for some here though haha.

[redjonn]

17 hours ago, TheReaper said:

A team in a league makes up an equal part of the league schedule. A broadcaster pays for the rights to be the exclusive broadcaster of that league. 

The only fair way to distribute the income for the rights to broadcast that schedule, which each team makes up an equal part of part of what has been sold, is for each team to receive an equal portion of what that money is for.

Complaints of "British money leaving" .... That's what happens in world trade. You import bananas, you export money. You export coal, you import money. You import a rugby team, you export money.  If most of the players are British and that team still has a base in the UK, a good chunk of that money even still stays!

And yes, obviously agreements can be made different from, either willingly or coerced with negotiating leverage.  But when an unfair deal is made, nobody can be surprised when one party isn't happy, and continues to advocate or agitate for a better deal. 

Although ignoring Toronto for a moment...

Your second paragraph:

Maybe one could argue that a broadcast deal is for those clubs in the league when the deal is agreed. So fairness may suggest that even if a team gets relegated to receive equal payments. 

Of course that's not how the deal is structured I would assume so I don't see the fairness argument with regards to a new club coming in.

When the new deal is negotiated it will be interesting to see how much extra Sky offer on the fact Toronto are part of the league, or how much lower it will be if they are not.

I suspect it won't make one iota of difference, whereas if any of Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Warrington, and add a couple more where not part of the league they would lower the value to Sky.

For Sky Toronto don't add a single penny to the broadcast deal, whereas if they replaced a Wigan it would lower the deal value.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, snoopdog said:

If you watch the Perez interview he clearly states the RFL moved the goal posts at the 11th hour, hence the investors pulled out , Perez had invested everything he had for 7 years upto that point , this was the point Argyle was found. I suggest you listen to facts instead of in your own word "stories"

It was claimed as fact until relatively recently that TWP wasn't reliant in Argyle and had a number of silent investors. 

That, it turns out was alternative facts. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

Although ignoring Toronto for a moment...

Your second paragraph:

Maybe one could argue that a broadcast deal is for those clubs in the league when the deal is agreed. So fairness may suggest that even if a team gets relegated to receive equal payments. 

Of course that's not how the deal is structured I would assume so I don't see the fairness argument with regards to a new club coming in.

When the new deal is negotiated it will be interesting to see how much extra Sky offer on the fact Toronto are part of the league, or how much lower it will be if they are not.

I suspect it won't make one iota of difference, whereas if any of Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Warrington, and add a couple more where not part of the league they would lower the value to Sky.

For Sky Toronto don't add a single penny to the broadcast deal, whereas if they replaced a Wigan it would lower the deal value.

The problem is that there are so many moving parts to this that it isn't as simple as x club brings y value etc. 

There was a point made aggressively to anyone that questioned London that Sky wanted London and the value would be lower. This wasn't true and a substantially increased deal came about. 

The logic that Sky will suddenly now pay less for SL because TWP are out is flawed based on the fact that the current deal was agreed without TWP in there. 

Similarly, all the talk about the comp losing value because Bradford collapsed was overstated, although I have more sympathy with this claim as Bradford were outstanding in their prime. 

Ultimately Sky won't be too interested in the level of detail that we are here. They have some high level requirements, I. E. Scheduling, number of games etc. but our viewing figures are relatively consistent and us scrapping round for a further 20k viewers here and there is nice, but it ain't adding millions in value. 

I think there is a fair argument that as a package a successful London, Bradford and Toronto makes SL more attractive to all stakeholders if they replaced the 3 weakest SL clubs, but I do think the broadcasters care less than we claim they do. 

[snoopdog]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was claimed as fact until relatively recently that TWP wasn't reliant in Argyle and had a number of silent investors. 

That, it turns out was alternative facts. 

Please can you show me the facts? Or is it another story ?

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, snoopdog said:

Please can you show me the facts? Or is it another story ?

This article from a few years back highlights that they were started with 11 investors. 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/more/big-read-toronto-wolfpack-best-little-startup-sports/

You'll find references to what I say in some of the pages of this 185 page thread if you are interested. 

It was only last year when Elstone started to question over-reliance on one rich backer that it started to be accepted that the club was Argyle. 

[snoopdog]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This article from a few years back highlights that they were started with 11 investors. 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/more/big-read-toronto-wolfpack-best-little-startup-sports/

You'll find references to what I say in some of the pages of this 185 page thread if you are interested. 

It was only last year when Elstone started to question over-reliance on one rich backer that it started to be accepted that the club was Argyle. 

So you show an article from the start of Toronto's journey ? No relevance what so ever with our discussion and totally contradicts your argument. I will leave you to peddle "stories" , gossip and hearsay.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, snoopdog said:

So you show an article from the start of Toronto's journey ? No relevance what so ever with our discussion and totally contradicts your argument. I will leave you to peddle "stories" , gossip and hearsay.

If you like. 

I'm not sure you know what our conversation was about. That's cool. 

 

[snoopdog]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If you like. 

I'm not sure you know what our conversation was about. That's cool. 

 

I'm sure you will make a good "storie" out of any conversation.

[ojx]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

But the point is that when a new team joins, they are expected to pay into the league, it costs them, whereas we are almost embarrassed to do that and our fans even expect a new club to be paid to join. 

Why do people celebrate MLS charging a bomb to join, but want us to actually pay others to join? 

I wonder if the likes of Mr Carter would be happy if Toronto had just paid a $20million expansion fee to be shared amongst the SL clubs, but were then automatically full members, with a share of all revenues. That's probably what this whole thing would have cost Mr. Argyle anyway.

[Loup]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Surely Mr Perez had talks with the RFL and funding would have been discussed prior to contacting the potential investors.

In the podcast, Perez claims that funding was to be part of the deal and then it was withdrawn at the last minute. At which point, investors bailed.

* Snap, already posted upthread.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Err...........and very quickly afterwards, the RFL issued a statement to say it wasnt like that.

"In response to Perez’s claims, the RFL issued a statement underlining that all discussions regarding Toronto being accepted into the British professional game were on the understanding they would not receive central funding.

“All discussions with Toronto prior to their entry into League One were on the basis that the club did not receive central distributions save to the extent that they brought value into the competitions – through commercial revenues, participation fee or otherwise,” the statement said."

One can see from that why Neil Hudgell thinks that they were expected to be self-funing perpetuity.  Evidently no one in the UK game thought that Toronto would bring much value into the competitions.

[Loup]

Rhinos bailed on a game at Catalans in March, due to covid-19 concerns. RFL threatened sanctions. I can't find any report of sanctions - was anything levied against Leeds?

The 2020 Super League season is set to resume, but it's on shaky ground with the looming risk of covid-19 outbreaks along the way. It's within the realm of possibility that other clubs will throw in the towel or that the season could still go right off the rails. SL must be considering these risks as they deliberate over Wolfpack's fate.

Read the clear and thoughtful statement from Rochdale Hornets about their withdrawal from the rest of the season and substitute "Wolfpack" for "Hornets" throughout.

[Big Picture]

10 hours ago, ojx said:

I saw the Seattle vs Arrows game replay on TSN1 today, great exposure. 

MLR is still small time, but the franchise value has shot up already in three years. They are looking for new markets and attracting bigger names, even Lee Radford dumped SL to move there (or was he dumped by SL?).

This model has its risks, they support existing owners with ever increasing expansion fees until enough markets are covered to get a worthwhile TV deal. A risk for sure, but they are looking for investors who can prove they are in it for the many years.

In the mean time RL will retrench and again.

MLR being a recent startup, they have more flexibility than SL.  RL really needs a new vehicle with similar flexibility based on the same North American model which has produced such growth as MLS has derived from it.

[Moove]

14 minutes ago, Loup said:

Rhinos bailed on a game at Catalans in March, due to covid-19 concerns. RFL threatened sanctions. I can't find any report of sanctions - was anything levied against Leeds?

No further action due to "exceptional circumstances"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/52773832