Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

No doubt we'll get blamed for that as well , " those north of England flat cap luddites with their out of date thinking have accidently created a virus " 🤔☠️

Ferret's,homing pigeons & lobby in close proximity  was a disaster waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour 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 ?

You seem to have closed the book without reading the final chapter.

37 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

No that was according to Kayakman and the expansion Klan 

No that was the Leigh folks...the noise always increased after every time we played ya and every time we beat  cha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

You seem to have closed the book without reading the final chapter.

No that was the Leigh folks...the noise always increased after every time we played ya and every time we beat  cha!

No I've certainly not closed the book , still a few chapters left IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

No doubt we'll get blamed for that as well , " those north of England flat cap luddites with their out of date thinking have accidently created a virus " 🤔☠️

What a ridiculous statement. No one can possibly deny that it was the coronavirus that pushed Argyle and TWP over the edge. All we're really debating here is how close to the edge they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A key factor for any new club, or takeover of existing clubs, is that too often we don’t seem to know much about the owner. In the case of Toronto we didn’t really know who Argyle was until the club was already playing games, and we still don’t know the name of the owner (or owners) of Ottawa or the New York bid. If we don’t know who we are dealing with how can we ascertain their true wealth, past business record and commitment to the game, things that I would have thought were essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oldbear said:

A key factor for any new club, or takeover of existing clubs, is that too often we don’t seem to know much about the owner. In the case of Toronto we didn’t really know who Argyle was until the club was already playing games, and we still don’t know the name of the owner (or owners) of Ottawa or the New York bid. If we don’t know who we are dealing with how can we ascertain their true wealth, past business record and commitment to the game, things that I would have thought were essential.

Tbf the only people who should need to know that are the RFL/Super League. I don't think Joe Public needs to know as a necessity but we're seeing more and more owners be more public now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SL17 said:

We are debating what punishment they will receive. Regardless of new owners. 
 

The show still went on. Now stop using excuses to fit the bill.

They should receive no punishment....rather support and assistance in entering this new phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

A simple search on Companies House provides that information for UK clubs.

It does, but we're not obliged to interview them all in the press and social media etc. which I assume is what people mean by "know about the owner".  Most people (outside of this forum) don't go looking up companies house regularly anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Then back to Championship you should go. 

I enjoyed watching the various Championship teams come over and would do so again....its tempting since we could continue giving it to Leigh!

I don't think SL would let them go though...that has been my stated position throughout all of the troubles....Toronto just has far too much to offer SL in terms of potential....this focus on punishment and punitive measures is interesting though...it seems to be a big thing over there in England.  

I believe in helping and offering support for clubs going through hard things though...rather than hitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

I enjoyed watching the various Championship teams come over and would do so again....its tempting since we could continue giving it to Leigh!

I don't think SL would let them go though...that has been my stated position throughout all of the troubles....Toronto just has far too much to offer SL in terms of potential....this focus on punishment and punitive measures is interesting though...it seems to be a big thing over there in England.  

I believe in helping and offering support for clubs going through hard things though...rather than hitting.

Indeed, the usual response to transgressions by a club's administration is to make the succeeding administration pay for it either by a fine or maybe, and you'll like this, taking half of the club's TV money and distributing it to the other SL clubs.

You can ensure that the new Admin isn't just a re-hash to avoid paying debts etc but there are better and more effective ways of achieving that -  but that't take thought and a little effort and the game's administration just can't be a**ed. So we want new money to help make our (failed/failing) clubs stronger but, just to make sure that they don't fail again, we penalise the people who are coming in. And we are scratching our heads why we don't get more takers 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SL17 said:

I like your sympathetic approach. But rules are there for a reason and should be followed at all times. 
 
Would it be better for Toronto to take -12 and stay in SL or return to Championship on a level pegging?

I’ll leave those thoughts with you.

I suppose we don't have clear rules for this do we? I'm not sure what the precedent would be, and there are clearly exceptional circumstances that would allow for deviation even if there was. 

My personal preference would be financial punishment, as you need to work out what you want to achieve with a punishment. Handicapping them next year doesn't help the SL comp, I'd be OK with them having to forfeit Central funding for a period until they have proven their reliability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SL17 said:

I like your sympathetic approach. But rules are there for a reason and should be followed at all times. 
 
Would it be better for Toronto to take -12 and stay in SL or return to Championship on a level pegging?

I’ll leave those thoughts with you.

-4 would work....that would be best...then we would at least have a chance...it would work with the crowd/fans over here selling it...the Underwolf and all of that...not too harsh though.....-4 is best for all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose we don't have clear rules for this do we? I'm not sure what the precedent would be, and there are clearly exceptional circumstances that would allow for deviation even if there was. 

My personal preference would be financial punishment, as you need to work out what you want to achieve with a punishment. Handicapping them next year doesn't help the SL comp, I'd be OK with them having to forfeit Central funding for a period until they have proven their reliability. 

I'd prefer a points deduction personally as I think from a SL perspective they should punish the late withdrawal after making commitments not the withdrawal itself (which is understandable). Whatever punishment happens if Toronto are in the comp next year, the reasons and charges have to be clear and succinct otherwise they'll fall into the mire of being included in the Coronavirus legal battleground. That's why I think they need to be clear that whatever punishment is dished out, if any, it is for the late withdrawal after committing to the league restart, officially, privately and publicly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'd prefer a points deduction personally as I think from a SL perspective they should punish the late withdrawal after making commitments not the withdrawal itself (which is understandable). Whatever punishment happens if Toronto are in the comp next year, the reasons and charges have to be clear and succinct otherwise they'll fall into the mire of being included in the Coronavirus legal battleground. That's why I think they need to be clear that whatever punishment is dished out, if any, it is for the late withdrawal after committing to the league restart, officially, privately and publicly. 

Im not a fan of points really as it distorts the comp. I am OK with it for salary cap breaches where you are punishing sporting cheating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Im not a fan of points really as it distorts the comp. I am OK with it for salary cap breaches where you are punishing sporting cheating. 

Yeah I can see that, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose we don't have clear rules for this do we? I'm not sure what the precedent would be, and there are clearly exceptional circumstances that would allow for deviation even if there was. 

My personal preference would be financial punishment, as you need to work out what you want to achieve with a punishment. Handicapping them next year doesn't help the SL comp, I'd be OK with them having to forfeit Central funding for a period until they have proven their reliability. 

TWP never received any central funding to begin with. That's part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TIWIT said:

TWP never received any central funding to begin with. That's part of the problem.

If a club is worrying about not getting central funding, they wouldn't go and spend the biggest SL playing budget EVER on a rather mediocre squad. So that claim doesn't stack up.

But this is about looking forward, and I think it would be foolish to start routing £1.8m per a year from the UK broadcasting deal to Canada without a probation period. Alternatively a bond can achieve a similar thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If a club is worrying about not getting central funding, they wouldn't go and spend the biggest SL playing budget EVER on a rather mediocre squad. So that claim doesn't stack up.

But this is about looking forward, and I think it would be foolish to start routing £1.8m per a year from the UK broadcasting deal to Canada without a probation period. Alternatively a bond can achieve a similar thing. 

I would not be surprised if it plays out thus:

Toronto included in Super League 2021.

Toronto get partial central funding withheld until the end of next season in case of repeat of this year's issues/manoeuvres. The other 11 clubs get the rest.

Toronto start recruiting for 2021.

Not as many decent players as Toronto hope sign on.  

Toronto get relegated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SL17 said:

I like your sympathetic approach. But rules are there for a reason and should be followed at all times. 
 
Would it be better for Toronto to take -12 and stay in SL or return to Championship on a level pegging?

I’ll leave those thoughts with you.

as much as i would normally agree with you at the beginning of this whole pandemic the RFL and/or Super League did say that the prescriptive nature of the punishments for clubs going under was to be suspended and that each case would very much be dealt with on its own merits... therefore I would say the "punishment" is not as straight forward as -12 because that is what happened before. It should be looked at in terms of what has happened to cause this, who is "to blame", and also and possible more importantly the impact of any punishment on the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But this is about looking forward, and I think it would be foolish to start routing £1.8m per a year from the UK broadcasting deal to Canada without a probation period. Alternatively a bond can achieve a similar thing. 

You mean routing money for broadcast rights to the club being broadcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheReaper said:

You mean routing money for broadcast rights to the club being broadcast

No, I meant what I said. 

The SL TV deal isn't just a straight split. Some teams outside of SL will get some of it, some goes to the RFL. The money is distributed as SLE /RFL sees fit. 

They didn't trust Toronto or believe their vision and decided not to invest money in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I would not be surprised if it plays out thus:

Toronto included in Super League 2021.

Toronto get partial central funding withheld until the end of next season in case of repeat of this year's issues/manoeuvres. The other 11 clubs get the rest.

Toronto start recruiting for 2021.

Not as many decent players as Toronto hope sign on.  

Toronto get relegated.

 

Agree. In fact after everything that has happened in the past couple of years re player and supplier payments, I can’t see any agent worth his salt advising a client to sign for TWP unless there are no other options. Expect a bunch of players coming off long term injuries to sign short term deals, hardly a recipe for success.

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.