The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[TIWIT]

Of course all of this is theoretical. Until Covid-19 has been dealt with TWP will not play.

[Adelaide Tiger]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Sorry to go list form, but you make some good points so want to address each of them to give my view.

1. I'll leave alone the obvious point that the WCC of 1997 was a one year wonder (which is a travesty as far as I'm concerned). But we have seen that TWP do have logistical issues, the Pro 14 have just seen their two South African teams take a hiatus, and RU's Super 15 (or whatever it is) has retracted. The logistics and costs around this make it difficult, but not impossible.

2. People  get hung up on visas, but there haven't been major issues. It is clear that TWP were using the one a few weeks back as a smokescreen, and then their bluff was called as the RFL sorted it. There has been the odd problem, but not a major issue, and this will always happen in international comps. Playing at home in blocks could be done better, but again, not the biggest issue. The issues I talk about are the frankly terrible business case of over-spending everywhere, then failing to meet commitments, whether that is transfer fees, broadcasting commitments, paying suppliers, and ultimately completing SL.

3. I think you are looking at that the wrong way. We shouldn't be talking about admitting a 'team' it should be a 'club'. At that stage literally every point will have been based on projections, which is fine, but if you looked at the main criteria you would expect in any licensing style approach, TWP would have scored very poorly as they literally had no evidence to support their claims. After a couple of years they had evidence of commercial performance, crowds, investor credibility etc. 

4. My point on this could help is that forecasts from the likes of Ottawa and New York (and others) actually have some evidence that RL can be attractive in virgin territory.  I also really don't think it is that onerous an ask. If people are serious about investing many millions into a new sports club, it is not unreasonable to ask them to do groundwork in advance of playing in SL. 

Lists keep it simple.

1. I agree that the cancelling if the WCC was a big mistake.  The Southern Kings pulling out of PRO 14 is due to financial issues not logistical problems.  The Super 15 competition has retracted but the major issue was not logistical.

2. All the points you make here could possibly have been raised, discussed in detail and hopefully resolved before Toronto was admitted by asking for an initial 5 year Business Plan.  If the Plan was flawed then do not admit them.

3. Ok team not club.  All a new business can do is provide a Business Plan based on projections.  How about this.  Imagine if Manchester Rangers (who I thought were treated shabbily) and Toronto had applied at the same time.  One is a community type club with grassroots involvement but little funds the other Is a club with no track record but a wealthy backer who could purchase a team to play in SL.  Do you put them in the same league?

4. It appears that your last two sentences put the onerous on clubs to do the ‘groundwork’ but this should be a two-way process with the RFL/SL providing a document that highlights all the issues that an application has to address.  It surely cannot be left to the applicant to put forward whatever they want.

 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Lists keep it simple.

1. I agree that the cancelling if the WCC was a big mistake.  The Southern Kings pulling out of PRO 14 is due to financial issues not logistical problems.  The Super 15 competition has retracted but the major issue was not logistical.

2. All the points you make here could possibly have been raised, discussed in detail and hopefully resolved before Toronto was admitted by asking for an initial 5 year Business Plan.  If the Plan was flawed then do not admit them.

3. Ok team not club.  All a new business can do is provide a Business Plan based on projections.  How about this.  Imagine if Manchester Rangers (who I thought were treated shabbily) and Toronto had applied at the same time.  One is a community type club with grassroots involvement but little funds the other Is a club with no track record but a wealthy backer who could purchase a team to play in SL.  Do you put them in the same league?

4. It appears that your last two sentences put the onerous on clubs to do the ‘groundwork’ but this should be a two-way process with the RFL/SL providing a document that highlights all the issues that an application has to address.  It surely cannot be left to the applicant to put forward whatever they want.

 

On 4. There is no document, as there is no process for automatic entry to SL. If a club wants to join the pyramid, they start in L1. 

Ultimately it becomes a licensing conversation if we want that to change. We don't currently have licensing. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

By the time TWP made SL they had built a fanbase, built a team, a presence in the community, a panel of sponsors and partners, built their brand - they went into SL as a stronger club than one that may have been admitted straight into SL 4 years earlier.

I think it would be impossible to argue against that. However the question is whether we believe the cost of going through that process is too much. TWP's approach of spending full cap suggests they didn't think so as they could have navigated at least L1 with a much lower cost base.

You did argue against your own point by using the word ‘may’ in your first paragraph and that has been the basis of my argument that Toronto may have been a success if they had gone straight into SL.  We will never know but we can both have differing opinions.

[Lowdesert]

It would be good to see what SL have drawn up regarding criteria before they review TWPs presentation to come back in.  I doubt they’ve done nothing of the sort tho.

[JonM]

2 hours ago, redjonn said:

The problem with the likes of my self is I don't see the strategic plan as to where effort, resources, money for expansion should be invested.  As for sure as already reading many want money to be given to Toronto and I guess any other NA club that reaches SL.

I guess this is because there does not appear to actually be a strategic plan, unless someone knows different? 

In a normal business, you might expect the CEO to have some kind of multi-year strategic goals, for example to increase the number of people playing, to increase the number of amateur clubs,  a route by which the England team might win a World Cup, to have women's RL regularly televised, to increase sponsorship revenue, to add one expansion club to SL in the next 5 years or whatever. You might also expect some kind of plan for how to achieve those goals e.g. employ some development officers to increase participation in a specific targeted area or talk to French regional government to see what funding might be available. 

If the RFL and SLE have any kind of strategy at all, beyond reacting to events and trying to keep current clubs alive and get a good tv deal, it does not appear to be well communicated. Clearly, there are no resources or money for expansion, so that part takes care of itself.

[TBone]

45 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Give me examples of this please. This should be fun. 

Bradford

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, TBone said:

Bradford

Eh? Nowt to do with awful owner after awful owner?

[Adelaide Tiger]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On 4. There is no document, as there is no process for automatic entry to SL. If a club wants to join the pyramid, they start in L1. 

Ultimately it becomes a licensing conversation if we want that to change. We don't currently have licensing. 

Unfortunately you are right.

But don’t you think that back when Toronto were created the RFL/SL should have created such a document?  To me it is staggering that no one apparently thought that this is a unique scenario that requires a unique approach.

Anyway thanks for keeping me occupied for the last couple of hours or so whilst the wife drooled over Jack Sparrow ..... same time, next week?

[TBone]

31 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Eh? Nowt to do with awful owner after awful owner?

Also reducing from 14 to 12. And, more recently, wanting to reduce from 12 to 10!

[Hela Wigmen]

15 minutes ago, TBone said:

Also reducing from 14 to 12. And, more recently, wanting to reduce from 12 to 10!

There’s been no official discussion around the drop to ten clubs. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

You did argue against your own point by using the word ‘may’ in your first paragraph and that has been the basis of my argument that Toronto may have been a success if they had gone straight into SL.  We will never know but we can both have differing opinions.

I haven't a clue what you read into my use of the word may tbh. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Unfortunately you are right.

But don’t you think that back when Toronto were created the RFL/SL should have created such a document?  To me it is staggering that no one apparently thought that this is a unique scenario that requires a unique approach.

Anyway thanks for keeping me occupied for the last couple of hours or so whilst the wife drooled over Jack Sparrow ..... same time, next week?

They could have, and I have no strong aversion to licensing, but many do, and the game has decided that we are not doing that right now. 

The process agreed was that TWP would start at the bottom. The lack of licensing wasn't an accident, it was a conscious decision. We don't have licensing, we don't have ring fencing, it would be a bold decision to provide that to one club. Even Catalans only got protection for a limited period. 

I'm not sure I am entirely comfortable with such a change in strategy just because a rich man wanted a plaything. 

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, TBone said:

Bradford

Gateshead and Sheffield in 1999 are better examples.  Gateshead had to compete with one hand tied behind their back because they weren't given a share of the TV money, and then they and Sheffield were eagerly sacrificed to save Hull and Huddersfield respectively.

[Gooleboy]

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Gateshead and Sheffield in 1999 are better examples.  Gateshead had to compete with one hand tied behind their back because they weren't given a share of the TV money, and then they and Sheffield were eagerly sacrificed to save Hull and Huddersfield respectively.

Not one of RL's finest moments.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Our central expansion efforts should be focused on grassroots stuff. We should be investing in population centres, working in schools, colleges, universities and amateur clubs. 

At the same time we should be creating a welcoming and attractive competition that is open to investment that could see a pro team created and enter the pyramid. 

Yes, the grassroots stuff should be a compulsory requirement of any team in 'expansion' area's to invest in.

[Man of Kent]

John Davidson is reporting some cannabis oil tycoon (though no billionaire) called Dustin Koffler could be the mystery buyer. Any of our Canadian cousins know anything about him?

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

On 4. There is no document, as there is no process for automatic entry to SL. If a club wants to join the pyramid, they start in L1. 

Ultimately it becomes a licensing conversation if we want that to change. We don't currently have licensing. 

Catalans 

Let's be under no illusions here , expanding transcontinental involves those expansions being ring fenced , they bring nothing to the lower tiers , the lower tiers give nothing to them , they don't want to be there , the lower tier clubs don't want them there 

To pretend otherwise is madness 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Catalans 

15 years ago, we've had full on licensing since then and now start teams in div 3.

I personally can live with putting a team straight in SL if we want to do that, but on paper TWP would have been more a PSG than a Catalans. 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

15 years ago, we've had full on licensing since then and now start teams in div 3.

I personally can live with putting a team straight in SL if we want to do that, but on paper TWP would have been more a PSG than a Catalans. 

See above 

So the other option is what ? , Reduce the lower tiers to 10 years of farce as the clubs in them face a succssession of SL quality squads running roughshod through them ? , And we have the same people wanting world dominating expansion stating the lower tiers should be vibrant , viable competitions that clubs should be happy to be in ? 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

See above 

So the other option is what ? , Reduce the lower tiers to 10 years of farce as the clubs in them face a succssession of SL quality squads running roughshod through them ? , And we have the same people wanting world dominating expansion stating the lower tiers should be vibrant , viable competitions that clubs should be happy to be in ? 

You'll never please everyone. There is no reason to suggest that new clubs will just do what TWP did with squad strength. And what if rich backers want to start a team in Liverpool or Birmingham or similar and buy a decent team? I find it an odd complaint that a club has more money so it is unfair. 

But the alternative is licensing. Because even with the Catalans approach they are at risk of relegation. 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

You'll never please everyone. There is no reason to suggest that new clubs will just do what TWP did with squad strength. And what if rich backers want to start a team in Liverpool or Birmingham or similar and buy a decent team? I find it an odd complaint that a club has more money so it is unfair. 

But the alternative is licensing. Because even with the Catalans approach they are at risk of relegation. 

What we've seen over the last 3/4 years hasn't pleased anybody 

Licence the expansion clubs , P and R the rest 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What we've seen over the last 3/4 years hasn't pleased anybody 

Licence the expansion clubs , P and R the rest 

Really? What's that based on? 

I'm OK with that proposal. 

[TBone]

4 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s been no official discussion around the drop to ten clubs. 

So you’ve forgetten the rift that it caused leading to the current agreement that SL will negotiate a new TV contract and pass down a few crumbs to those outside SL?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

13 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Licence the expansion clubs , P and R the rest 

And when a club gets relegated when not finishing bottom?...