The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Its basic Darwinian science...you know that old guy from England...the few wolves that survive are therefore the fittest and will breed their genetics into the next generation.....we already have the head of Leeds so we all know who is next...WE WANT WIGAN!

Most of the breeding will take place in England's Green and Pleasant Land and those which aren't will be Antipodean, not a single genetic Canuck in sight.

Just saying. 

[Kayakman]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Most of the breeding will take place in England's Green and Pleasant Land and those which aren't will be Antipodean, not a single genetic Canuck in sight.

Just saying. 

Thats Okay..all wolf fur colours are allowed within 'The Pack'.

[TIWIT]

42 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Thats Okay..all wolf fur colours are allowed within 'The Pack'.

NO PINK! A pink wolf is just... wrong.

[Whippet13]

Update on today's discussion

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/toronto-wolfpack-hold-new-owner-22613927

[fcl]

in France when a professional club has to be bought, the new owner must show guarantees and there is an investigation into him and the origin of the funds. Despite this, mafia or fantasy can buy clubs and use them. Argyle's departure may be a chance to start again on a healthier basis. I hope the new owner will not hide and that we will know his true fortune.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, fcl said:

in France when a professional club has to be bought, the new owner must show guarantees and there is an investigation into him and the origin of the funds. Despite this, mafia or fantasy can buy clubs and use them. Argyle's departure may be a chance to start again on a healthier basis. I hope the new owner will not hide and that we will know his true fortune.

I will always give something the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong to do so. 

Whoever the new owner is and whatever he has got financially he will be representative of a club that has defaulted, and because of who the club is and where they play from they cannot be trated with the same conditions as the other clubs, so being once bitten I would be twice shy with Toronto, Mr Argyle was taken on face value, sadly that cannot happen with any new owner, the RFL and SL should be make it a requirement for him to deposit a sizeable bond with the authorities redeemable only when they have satisfied that they will not default again however long that takes. 

[Whippet13]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I will always give something the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong to do so. 

Whoever the new owner is and whatever he has got financially he will be representative of a club that has defaulted, and because of who the club is and where they play from they cannot be trated with the same conditions as the other clubs, so being once bitten I would be twice shy with Toronto, Mr Argyle was taken on face value, sadly that cannot happen with any new owner, the RFL and SL should be required to deposit a sizeable bond with the authorities redeemable only when they have satisfied that they will not default again however long that takes. 

I wouldnt simply apply this logic to Toronto, the RFL/SL has a long history of taking new owners at face value, usually ending in tears. We don't learn from this because RL tries to do Project Management of expansion on the cheap.

A bond is absolutely fine, and will provide focus for any new club, but there should also be direct oversight and measurement of KPI's with new ventures for x years. There needs to be far more effort to obtain early insight into any emerging issues and bad practices. 

There are lots of basic steps the RFL/SL can put in place to mitigate risk and help guide the new club itself. From what I can see none or very little of this was done with Toronto.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

I wouldnt simply apply this logic to Toronto, the RFL/SL has a long history of taking new owners at face value, usually ending in tears. We don't learn from this because RL tries to do Project Management of expansion on the cheap.

A bond is absolutely fine, and will provide focus for any new club, but there should also be direct oversight and measurement of KPI's with new ventures for x years. There needs to be far more effort to obtain early insight into any emerging issues and bad practices. 

There are lots of basic steps the RFL/SL can put in place to mitigate risk and help guide the new club itself. From what I can see none or very little of this was done with Toronto.

Totally agree, it should also apply to Ottawa but is that to late on the bond?

[LeeF]

12 hours ago, fcl said:

in France when a professional club has to be bought, the new owner must show guarantees and there is an investigation into him and the origin of the funds. Despite this, mafia or fantasy can buy clubs and use them. Argyle's departure may be a chance to start again on a healthier basis. I hope the new owner will not hide and that we will know his true fortune.

So their system doesn’t work

[Whippet13]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Totally agree, it should also apply to Ottawa but is that to late on the bond?

It would be unfair, reputationally damaging and possibly open to legal challenge if Ottawa were told to provide a bond, they have applied in good faith and been accepted after meeting criteria set by the RFL.

It could probably be asked for should they reach the point of applying for SL, which is their stated goal - that's where cost and risk rise substantially.

For any new clubs (starting with the New York "application") I think there should be a clear set of standard criteria and checkpoints in place to obtain and retain membership. This isn't about controlling or restricting a club, all they have to do is demonstrate a club is on a sound financial footing and being run sustainably.

[fcl]

This limits certain excesses in football. In addition there is an independent supervisory board to judge the financial condition of clubs and without guarantee a club can be demoted.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Totally agree, it should also apply to Ottawa but is that to late on the bond?

That would be going too far Harry (re; Whippett 13 post two above this one).  Th SL demands were numerous and thorough for the 'Toronto Incident'  It sounds to me like they just might pull it off, that Bob Hunter is a good operator, I told you he would 'git 'er done!'

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Whippet13 said:

I wouldnt simply apply this logic to Toronto, the RFL/SL has a long history of taking new owners at face value, usually ending in tears. We don't learn from this because RL tries to do Project Management of expansion on the cheap.

A bond is absolutely fine, and will provide focus for any new club, but there should also be direct oversight and measurement of KPI's with new ventures for x years. There needs to be far more effort to obtain early insight into any emerging issues and bad practices. 

There are lots of basic steps the RFL/SL can put in place to mitigate risk and help guide the new club itself. From what I can see none or very little of this was done with Toronto.

Whilst I don't disagree with the principle of what you are saying. it is not the RFL's job to micro-manage SL clubs. If they do identify some financial hardship emerging in a season, what are they meant to do at that point? Obviously there are things like banning signings etc. but tbh I'm not a fan of the governing body getting too close. This has been a major issue for the game in recent years, the governing body has had to get so involved in failing businesses that they don't always have the time and resources to drive the game forward.

And the Bradford situation showed that it is a thankless task that nobody anywhere will thank you for.

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst I don't disagree with the principle of what you are saying. it is not the RFL's job to micro-manage SL clubs. If they do identify some financial hardship emerging in a season, what are they meant to do at that point? Obviously there are things like banning signings etc. but tbh I'm not a fan of the governing body getting too close. This has been a major issue for the game in recent years, the governing body has had to get so involved in failing businesses that they don't always have the time and resources to drive the game forward.

And the Bradford situation showed that it is a thankless task that nobody anywhere will thank you for.

If they take a good hard look at it now and properly vet it there should be no big reasons to keep going back....if the bid doesn't 'cut the mustard' now then that is the end of it period...all melodramas must eventually come to an end.

If they accept then Toronto is full on again and 'all in'...this should be accepted by everyone who is a supporter of Rugby League.

[iffleyox]

38 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

If they accept then Toronto is full on again and 'all in'...this should be accepted by everyone who is a supporter of Rugby League.

while I agree with your sentiment entirely, a lot of the preceding 249 pages is shot through with people doubting the competence of the RFL to accurately make that sort of judgement... (either way, in fairness)

[TheReaper]

2 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

It could probably be asked for should they reach the point of applying for SL, which is their stated goal - that's where cost and risk rise substantially.

Only if laid out and accepted when entering the league system. Otherwise you're going to a negotiation standoff every time a new club gets promoted.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, iffleyox said:

while I agree with your sentiment entirely, a lot of the preceding 249 pages is shot through with people doubting the competence of the RFL to accurately make that sort of judgement... (either way, in fairness)

I believe it is SL making the decision.

[iffleyox]

15 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I believe it is SL making the decision.

fair point, my faith in them is marginally higher, though I would expect them to approach things from a strict upfront profit and loss basis rather than strategic cost benefit, which will potentially lead to the same issues in the long term.... I.e. I would expect both of them to cock it up, for but for different reasons and via different routes. Obviously I hope they don't. 

[Whippet13]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Whilst I don't disagree with the principle of what you are saying. it is not the RFL's job to micro-manage SL clubs. If they do identify some financial hardship emerging in a season, what are they meant to do at that point? Obviously there are things like banning signings etc. but tbh I'm not a fan of the governing body getting too close. This has been a major issue for the game in recent years, the governing body has had to get so involved in failing businesses that they don't always have the time and resources to drive the game forward.

And the Bradford situation showed that it is a thankless task that nobody anywhere will thank you for.

Agree, I don't want micro-management of any club - just assurance that things are ok and to offer any support they need.

No professional business setting up a new branch says "off you go lads, good luck and see you next year", they provide monitoring, support and guidance until they can stand on their own two feet. The same logic applies to RL.

In the early days of a new club's existence there should be close engagement with the RFL/SL, not least because they can actually provide a lot of expertise to the new organisation and point out the many pitfalls. That support should then dwindle over a period of time.

As for Bradford, I think that was bad management rather than micro-management.

[Whippet13]

2 hours ago, TheReaper said:

Only if laid out and accepted when entering the league system. Otherwise you're going to a negotiation standoff every time a new club gets promoted.

I meant specifically with Ottawa, as they are already in the league system without a bond in place.

Future clubs can be looked at differently.

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Agree, I don't want micro-management of any club - just assurance that things are ok and to offer any support they need.

No professional business setting up a new branch says "off you go lads, good luck and see you next year", they provide monitoring, support and guidance until they can stand on their own two feet. The same logic applies to RL.

In the early days of a new club's existence there should be close engagement with the RFL/SL, not least because they can actually provide a lot of expertise to the new organisation and point out the many pitfalls. That support should then dwindle over a period of time.

As for Bradford, I think that was bad management rather than micro-management.

Yes , but Toronto were going to show us all what we were doing wrong , and show us the proper way , the North American way ?

[Davo5]

30 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , but Toronto were going to show us all what we were doing wrong , and show us the proper way , the North American way ?

According to Parky & the Leigh Legion of Doom.

[TIWIT]

49 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , but Toronto were going to show us all what we were doing wrong , and show us the proper way , the North American way ?

And they might very well have had Covid-19 not come along.

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

According to Parky & the Leigh Legion of Doom.

No that was according to Kayakman and the expansion Klan 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, TIWIT said:

And they might very well have had Covid-19 not come along.

No doubt we'll get blamed for that as well , " those north of England flat cap luddites with their out of date thinking have accidently created a virus "