Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Quote:-

"Super League owners would have to support us coming back into Super League next year"

Given the demands Mr Argyle wanted of both full funding and clubs to pay their own Travel and Subsistance for games in Toronto, if the proposed new owner's insisted on these contingencies would it get through?

 

A Poll would be interesting.  So would the criteria for allowing them back.  I think it would need to be a bit more than you say but...

This is from Twitter :

1- Quality management team and leadership

2- Tight fiscal controls

3- Better funding deal with Super League

4- Leaner business model

5- Play home games earlier, than all at the end of the season.

Not sure about ‘5’ ?  Hunter said earlier, they have done the hard work already.

Any company buying TWP that offers a sniff of a NA TV contract would swing it imo.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

 

Any company buying TWP that offers a sniff of a NA TV contract would swing it imo.

 

 

 

 

the bid needs to be sound regardless of a TV contract because presumably no one wants a situation where a team got the green light on the basis of something which might not happen, which then didn’t happen and screwed said team’s own model and what it was supposedly bringing to the table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not adding much to the discussion but (even as a Toronto well-wisher) it strikes me yet again that this going to come down to the fact that this whole thing isn’t SL or the RFL setting out to have a team in NA so much as a group in NA wanting to be in SL/the RFL. 
 

if it happens then the league and RFL will make all the right noises again about strategy but in reality this isn’t strategic in the slightest. There are obvious strategic opportunities, but too many people get confused between those and an actual strategy. Until there is one - from the RFL and SL - then Toronto will always be supplicants in the good days and the first out of the basket in the bad because when it comes down to it they found SL/the RFL - no one in the latter bodies went looking for or asking for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Probably not adding much to the discussion but (even as a Toronto well-wisher) it strikes me yet again that this going to come down to the fact that this whole thing isn’t SL or the RFL setting out to have a team in NA so much as a group in NA wanting to be in SL/the RFL. 
 

if it happens then the league and RFL will make all the right noises again about strategy but in reality this isn’t strategic in the slightest. There are obvious strategic opportunities, but too many people get confused between those and an actual strategy. Until there is one - from the RFL and SL - then Toronto will always be supplicants in the good days and the first out of the basket in the bad because when it comes down to it they found SL/the RFL - no one in the latter bodies went looking for or asking for them.

another way of saying that is that the governing bodies need to sit down and work out what they actually want, come up with a plan off the back of that, and then arrange things accordingly. Bluntly, it needs a strategic decision on whether the league (as in structure) wants overseas teams or not. We can argue about which way the decision should go on that but broadly it's a yes or no. Then everything else will flow from that a hell of a lot better than the ad hoc decision making and near perpetual firefighting we get instead.

And everyone would know where they stood - at the moment it's too easy for (some) heartlanders to project a vision of the M62 drawbridge from one direction, and the expansionists to be dreaming of the big cities across the NH from the other. This ability to satisfy nobody (except of course the oft-forgotten quiet majority who just want to go and watch their team every week and don't care either way) is symptomatic of the utter vacuum at the heart of current NH rugby league, a vacuum where the strategy should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Still sounds optimistic, although at the end he does describe himself as the ultimate optimist, so hopefully it isn't just that but there is some reality at play here!

I'm pretty confident they'll get a proposal together for 31/08.

It's getting approval by the SL clubs and under what terms that I think will be the biggest hurdle.

It'll come down to:

Is there a new owner with guaranteed funding over X years? 

What does the new business case show Toronto is worth financially to SL/RFL short, medium and long term?

How will continuous performance against plan be demonstrated to the RFL/SL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

 

 

1) Is there a new owner with guaranteed funding over X years? 

2) What does the new business case show Toronto is worth financially to SL/RFL short, medium and long term?

3) How will continuous performance against plan be demonstrated to the RFL/SL?

And a view (presumably from the existing other club owners as much as anything else) on 1 will be the clincher either way because I can't see the SL/RFL doing 2 or consistently doing 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

the bid needs to be sound regardless of a TV contract because presumably no one wants a situation where a team got the green light on the basis of something which might not happen, which then didn’t happen and screwed said team’s own model and what it was supposedly bringing to the table?

Yes indeed.   Firstly, do SL need them?  I think discussions will have already been made and will continue.  Sounds like McManus is willing to listen.

Secondly, guarantees, bills have to paid and proven paid, followed by a much stricter financial plan coupled with decent business strategy. 

SL have already seen what TWP can’t do and what COVID can do, so will guard against those, but to give funding to them will take a lot of convincing, this is why I suggested that any inkling of Media contracts in NA might tempt SL provide all events exist.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Hunter is highly regarded and respected in his field....roll the dice...it looks like a 50/50 now which is an improvement....SL would be nuts to get rid of Toronto after all the groundwork has been done....I sure hope it all works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Yes indeed.   Firstly, do SL need them?  I think discussions will have already been made and will continue.  Sounds like McManus is willing to listen.

Secondly, guarantees, bills have to paid and proven paid, followed by a much stricter financial plan coupled with decent business strategy. 

SL have already seen what TWP can’t do and what COVID can do, so will guard against those, but to give funding to them will take a lot of convincing, this is why I suggested that any inkling of Media contracts in NA might tempt SL provide all events exist.

 

 

 

 

 

Agree, although I think the honest answer* when Toronto asked to join should have been  no. Yes as equal partners was never going to happen, and this halfway house situation of "yes, but only if you don't cost us anything" was never going to cut it in the longer term.

Again, it's like no one could really ignore the strategic possibilities Toronto offered (and let's not even get into NY and Ottawa) but no one equally wanted/wants to do the hard thinking of what that looks like or how to get there (or even if there should be somewhere they want to get to). So we got "come on in, let's all cross our fingers and hope we can muddle along without disappointing literally everyone on all sides."

With, as they used to say in the TV guides, predictably hilarious results.

*as in honest answer from the reality based community after a hard headed look at the structural capabilities of the English leagues for strategic planning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iffleyox said:

And a view (presumably from the existing other club owners as much as anything else) on 1 will be the clincher either way because I can't see the SL/RFL doing 2 or consistently doing 3.

Number 2 is about cash impact on the SL clubs against forecasts, I think the SL clubs will be keen on this lol.   

Number 3 is easy, many simple and cheap solutions - e.g. they could insist on a part-time non-exec director chosen by the RFL/SL being appointed to the Toronto board. Their role could simply be to make ongoing reports to the RFL/SL high command on the club's situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Number 2 is about cash impact on the SL clubs against forecasts, I think the SL clubs will be keen on this lol.   

Number 3 is easy, many simple and cheap solutions - e.g. they could insist on a part-time non-exec director chosen by the RFL/SL being appointed to the Toronto board. Their role could simply be to make ongoing reports to the RFL/SL high command on the club's situation. 

👍 , Where do I sign ? 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

The latest update doesn't really sound much of an update since the last update.

The update is: "we aren't giving up and things are looking hopeful/terminal*".

*Delete as per individual view on Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Disagree Paul, Mr Hunter has to keep Toronto in the minds of people, I consider if he was saying nothing at all that would be a case of "No news is bad news". 

I agree (If it was here UK) however he has too much to lose as a sports administrator if it was as bad as we think I am certain he would come out and say what he thinks along the lines of that he was taken for a ride to. (Hope I am making sense here)

Paul

PS/Dont forget to PM me for Manchester even if kayak man disappears off the planet you are still invited 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Number 2 is about cash impact on the SL clubs against forecasts, I think the SL clubs will be keen on this lol.   

Number 3 is easy, many simple and cheap solutions - e.g. they could insist on a part-time non-exec director chosen by the RFL/SL being appointed to the Toronto board. Their role could simply be to make ongoing reports to the RFL/SL high command on the club's situation. 

My point with number 2 is that the clubs might be keen on it, and Toronto will have to give them some figures along those lines. But where's the secretariat at the SL end to do their own figures or properly check Toronto's?

With number three, they could - but ideally you wouldn't want them on Toronto's board, you'd want Toronto's board reporting to this person. And ideally you'd want Toronto stumping up the money to pay this person (via the RFL/SL). Which I can;t see happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

My point with number 2 is that the clubs might be keen on it, and Toronto will have to give them some figures along those lines. But where's the secretariat at the SL end to do their own figures or properly check Toronto's?

With number three, they could - but ideally you wouldn't want them on Toronto's board, you'd want Toronto's board reporting to this person. And ideally you'd want Toronto stumping up the money to pay this person (via the RFL/SL). Which I can;t see happening.

If (add some massive caveats here) they do somehow survive in SL I just think there will have to be some sort of ongoing oversight beyond that which the other clubs are normally subject to. What it'll be I have no idea, but it's too much of a risk not to have something in place given what has happened. 

It can be done at low cost. The RFL/SL could insist Toronto use the RFL/SL accountants for example and provide a monthly update report, it isn't going to cost Toronto any more than employing their own. Lots of other ways to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iffleyox said:

the governing bodies need to sit down and work out what they actually want, come up with a plan off the back of that, and then arrange things accordingly. Bluntly, it needs a strategic decision on whether the league (as in structure) wants overseas teams or not. We can argue about which way the decision should go on that but broadly it's a yes or no. Then everything else will flow from that a hell of a lot better than the ad hoc decision making and near perpetual firefighting we get instead.

That all makes perfect sense, which makes me wonder why then hasn't it happened already? It would seem such an obvious and essential thing to do. Is it perhaps the case that the RFL/SL don't want to begin the discussion because they're worried it would cause disagreements and potential splits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iffleyox said:

 

Again, it's like no one could really ignore the strategic possibilities Toronto offered (and let's not even get into NY and Ottawa) but no one equally wanted/wants to do the hard thinking of what that looks like or how to get there (or even if there should be somewhere they want to get to). So we got "come on in, let's all cross our fingers and hope we can muddle along without disappointing literally everyone on all sides."

 

The black and white of this is that Canada and Toronto was and still is not an area of expansion for SL or the UK comps. The reason there is no SL strategy for expansion into Canada is that quite frankly it isn't a good idea. It isn't a good idea to spend SL's limited financial resources, it isn't a good idea to increase the cost base of the existing teams, and any tangible benefits won't be realised for a long time, that is acknowledged by the likes of Perez.

This is one of those 'opportunities' that on paper isn't a good idea for investment, but is a bit of an opportunity whereby somebody rich will pay for a team. But let's be clear here, that is all Argyle has done - he hasn't done any groundwork for the sport of RL in Canada - if TWP go bust at the end of this month, there is a good chance that there will be literally nothing left to come out of it. He hasn't done anything for the 'game' there, he has funded a plaything.

But, your point is right, that however this has come about, an opportunity is here - we need to decide do we want to give it a go. If the answer is yes, we need a strategy, if the answer is no (a perfectly reasonable answer) then we need to be more ruthless and stop wasting everyone's time.

The answer to this N.A expansion does not have to be yes. 

People should ask themselves, if five years ago they were given a pot of £20m to use on expansion areas, would they have gone and spent it in Toronto. The answer would be no. And the answer for that is that it's not a good use of money. But we are where we are, and I suggest SLE makes a clear decision either way and cracks on with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The black and white of this is that Canada and Toronto was and still is not an area of expansion for SL or the UK comps. The reason there is no SL strategy for expansion into Canada is that quite frankly it isn't a good idea. It isn't a good idea to spend SL's limited financial resources, it isn't a good idea to increase the cost base of the existing teams, and any tangible benefits won't be realised for a long time, that is acknowledged by the likes of Perez.

This is one of those 'opportunities' that on paper isn't a good idea for investment, but is a bit of an opportunity whereby somebody rich will pay for a team. But let's be clear here, that is all Argyle has done - he hasn't done any groundwork for the sport of RL in Canada - if TWP go bust at the end of this month, there is a good chance that there will be literally nothing left to come out of it. He hasn't done anything for the 'game' there, he has funded a plaything.

But, your point is right, that however this has come about, an opportunity is here - we need to decide do we want to give it a go. If the answer is yes, we need a strategy, if the answer is no (a perfectly reasonable answer) then we need to be more ruthless and stop wasting everyone's time.

The answer to this N.A expansion does not have to be yes. 

People should ask themselves, if five years ago they were given a pot of £20m to use on expansion areas, would they have gone and spent it in Toronto. The answer would be no. And the answer for that is that it's not a good use of money. But we are where we are, and I suggest SLE makes a clear decision either way and cracks on with it. 

Lets just face it...alot will go into the pedigree of the new owner (if there is one).  For example, if a major owner steps forward with a high pedigree, that would go a long way with the owners and solve alot of problems.   That is the best case scenario..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Lets just face it...alot will go into the pedigree of the new owner (if there is one).  For example, if a major owner steps forward with a high pedigree, that would go a long way with the owners and solve alot of problems.   That is the best case scenario..

Agreed. That's the best hope here. Hunter seems a good knowledgeable guy, him leading a reliable consortium of investors would be the best chance of TWP making the 2021 start line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.