The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

 But that’s £1.8M Toronto should already have, with it they’d still be playing and paying players. How many other Super League clubs could pay their players wages without the sky money?

In your opinion. There is no guaranteed central funding. 

Their behaviour led to them being unpopular and winning few friends. That is now biting them. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

42 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

 But that’s £1.8M Toronto should already have, with it they’d still be playing and paying players. How many other Super League clubs could pay their players wages without the sky money?

Whilst I agree they should have had the sky money, they chose to pay 1 player twice as much as the entire cap so citing that as a reason for their struggles is a bit rich, particularly as the noises at the time of the initial entry was that they would not take any money from the sky deal as they were to keep all of the money from TV that they were going to negotiate over the pond.

[Gooleboy]

49 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

 But that’s £1.8M Toronto should already have, with it they’d still be playing and paying players. How many other Super League clubs could pay their players wages without the sky money?

When they started out, didn't they say when they reached SL, they wouldn't want the TV funding?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

7 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

When they started out, didn't they say when they reached SL, they wouldn't want the TV funding?

No. Toronto we’re told they were only allowed in Super League without tv funding. This is not the same. 

[Gooleboy]

1 minute ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

No. Toronto we’re told they were only allowed in Super League without tv funding. This is not the same. 

I stand corrected.

[CanadianRugger]

30 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

No. Toronto we’re told they were only allowed in Super League without tv funding. This is not the same. 

People here suffer from selective memory loss, particularly  when it comes to Toronto Wolfpack.

[dealwithit]

17 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Sorry been away but will work through these then I think I've said all I have to add to this topic. I would go 14 or 15 maximum teams with the protected spots for France and Canada with no relegation for them. I think Toulouse need to be given time to grow and develop players and the game, free of worry. 

On the TV, it isn't whatabboutism, it is a fact. International viewers that you can't monetize (for Sky) are meaningless. You contribute zero to that deal.  Across a variety of sports and intra country competitions in Europe, that is the settled formula. It is the reason Juventus one season got more money than Barcelona in the association football champions league(despite Barca beating Juve in the final). Why? Because Italian viewers put more into the TV pot and thus their clubs could take out more. It's a common distribution formula which you are against because it doesn't benefit the clubs you care about most. Fine, it's natural self-interest but doesn't make for a convincing case. It works the other way in that I wouldn't expect UK clubs to be allowed to take any money from a French or Canadian TV deal.

On the minimum player quota (I would have 4/5 in the matchday squad as a rule), if the club only pays "lip service" in your words, well they are going to struggle to compete at the top end of SL. So you are incentivised via force to change that, this will be beneficial to the long term growth of the game. It is not for the clubs selfish interest the rule exists and explaining that they would prefer to pick whoever they want (no sh*t) doesn't make it best for the game. Again, you sound as if you want all the benefits (protected spot, tv money) with absolutely none of the trade offs. As recent events have made clear, you aren't viable at the championship so if you want to be protected you have to accept some restraints. Again, if the club can't find 4 people out of the 1.6 million canadian men who could be passable, well tough. Find them. 

Yes, I do know the NA franchise system. I also know that the NFL has repeatedly leeched money from the public sector to pay for massive new stadiums to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars or threat to leave the town. It also used LA and Vegas as threats to do this for years and has left a trail of teams (San Diego, Oakland, St Louis) dead when they moved them somewhere else, destroying a generation of fans who were treated as nothing move than a commodity. It is what makes me nervous that Ottawa brought a club then moved it, it is a horrible precedent I do not want anywhere near sport. 

Overall, I think you are keen to demand 'fair' when it economically benefits your clubs and then want the special exemptions when it , again, benefits your clubs. If you won't even accept minimum player quotas or to pay for travel when you are literally on another continent I fear that you are making no attempt to build bridges at a time when Toronto just took the pish massively out of everyone who would support expansion. Remember, it would be fair to boot Toronto into the Championship and to (now that the potential new owner has said he'll only pay debts on condition of a Super League place) extinction. 

So that would be it. 14 teams, 4 protected sports, minimum home grown quotas  and get your own tv deal. If you can't generate your own tv deal anyway then the economics would show that expansion into NA isn't viable. Even if you got a lesser deal to start with split between two clubs (say 2 million canadian dollars a year so roughly half a million british pounds each) that would still be a significant boost to your budgets and somewhere to grow from. 

 

 

   

What about in the NRL, where the NZ tv contract is worth circa $20M but the Warriors only get the same amount as the other nrl teams, roughly 10-12M. 

[Oxford]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

At the moment we have P&R precisley what statement should be made Oxy, along the lines of "Under no circumstances will any club ever be awarded preferential treatment over and above any other club in the same competitions" that I will most certainly agree with.

What is clear is that we need to get rid of TWP and on the same basis NT & Ottawa  look at at the arguments made on these pages. Pointless, never ending & boring.

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

We shouldn't be afraid of making the decision either way. But a decision and plan should be made. We can't make a decision for today and worry about SL when that comes. We have seen that doesn't work. 

Yes you're right Dave taking a  brave decision is a necessity. A plan is entirely another thing. But everything we might worry about with TWP would equally apply to Ottawa and NY so get rid of all three. It is the only way to stop these interminable discusssions where no one can agree, we can all stop pretending our sport can progress other than at a very low level. And Angry Harry from everywhere TGG can move on to just being cross with the RFL & the rules .

In any case if TWP go we can put Cleckedmondbridge straight into SL!

 

 

[CanadianRugger]

14 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

What about in the NRL, where the NZ tv contract is worth circa $20M but the Warriors only get the same amount as the other nrl teams, roughly 10-12M. 

Happens in Canada as well with hockey.  NHL Canadian TV deal is worth $5.2 billion over 12 years or $433,000,000.00 per season but it's divided amongst all 31 clubs in the league (soon to be 32 with Seattle). 

There are 7 Canadian clubs in the league so they each get $13.7 million from the National deal but if we followed your rules, they would get a lot more.  

NHL Clubs receive another $200 million per season from NBC for American rights, or $6.4 million per club but on top of this, each club also has the ability to sell local rights to local tv stations.

Some of these local deals are worth more to clubs than any of the National broadcasting deals.  The Toronto Maple Leafs local deal is worth $40 millon a season, roughly.  

 

The problem with Rugby League in England is SKY has the sport by the balls with an incredibly archaic TV deal, the competition that is Super League is also not even a National Brand, it's basically regional.  The population catchment area is very small.  The NHL in North America was like this 40 years ago but embarked on a concerted effort in the early 1990s to change this and now has clubs in places I would have never dreamed of. 

When the changes happened, traditionalists were ######, we lost my club in Quebec City who moved to Colorado.  However, as the NHL has gotten richer and more profitable, the opportunity for clubs to come back has emerged.  Winnipeg being the latest to return and in far stronger financial position than when they left, given all the different revenue streams the league now has.

Super League needs to massively expand its footprint and brand.  Toulouse should 100% be in SL as should London.  If you can get two clubs in London, even better.  Likewise, if Super League wants to expand to North America it needs to do it right.

[TheReaper]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Sorry been away but will work through these then I think I've said all I have to add to this topic. I would go 14 or 15 maximum teams with the protected spots for France and Canada with no relegation for them. I think Toulouse need to be given time to grow and develop players and the game, free of worry. 

That's fine,  the ideal number of spots is pretty debatable.  16 is optimistic, based on wanting to include everyone,  but might not be viable right away. 

Quote

On the TV, it isn't whatabboutism, it is a fact. International viewers that you can't monetize (for Sky) are meaningless. You contribute zero to that deal. 

But they can monetize that, I said exactly how.  Advertising by international companies operating in multiple countries. Sky would pay for UK broadcast rights,  and in turn sell UK subscriptions in the UK and sell advertising on those channels. Some of those advertisers would be league - wide sponsors who will (ideally) be higher value than they currently. 

Quote

Across a variety of sports and intra country competitions in Europe, that is the settled formula. It is the reason Juventus one season got more money than Barcelona in the association football champions league(despite Barca beating Juve in the final). Why? Because Italian viewers put more into the TV pot and thus their clubs could take out more. It's a common distribution formula which you are against because it doesn't benefit the clubs you care about most. Fine, it's natural self-interest but doesn't make for a convincing case. It works the other way in that I wouldn't expect UK clubs to be allowed to take any money from a French or Canadian TV deal.

Okay,  so as you've shown there's one way, as others have explained the NHL and NFL do it another way. But only one way seems (to me) to be enticing enough to all parties to be viable. We've seen how much the current financial situation leads to fighting over what would be scraps in one of the big leagues. It needs to be equal so that as the value changes in each market,  all will benefit, and the certainty of equality will prevent in-fighting.

Quote

On the minimum player quota (I would have 4/5 in the matchday squad as a rule)

Also reasonable, again debatable and subject to negotiation.

Quote

if the club only pays "lip service" in your words, well they are going to struggle to compete at the top end of SL.

They very well might. Or, they go all in on Canadian talent and despite their best efforts,  continue to struggle in perpetuity. We don't know the future.

Quote

So you are incentivised via force to change that, this will be beneficial to the long term growth of the game. It is not for the clubs selfish interest the rule exists and explaining that they would prefer to pick whoever they want (no sh*t) doesn't make it best for the game. Again, you sound as if you want all the benefits (protected spot, tv money) with absolutely none of the trade offs.

Equal TV money is not a benefit, is equality. And I have already said I'd accept a quota as a trade off for inclusion if it came to that. I can still put forward my arguments about the value of certain policies.

Quote

As recent events have made clear, you aren't viable at the championship so if you want to be protected you have to accept some restraints. Again, if the club can't find 4 people out of the 1.6 million canadian men who could be passable, well tough. Find them. 

Yes, I do know the NA franchise system. I also know that the NFL has repeatedly leeched money from the public sector to pay for massive new stadiums to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars or threat to leave the town. It also used LA and Vegas as threats to do this for years and has left a trail of teams (San Diego, Oakland, St Louis) dead when they moved them somewhere else, destroying a generation of fans who were treated as nothing move than a commodity. It is what makes me nervous that Ottawa brought a club then moved it, it is a horrible precedent I do not want anywhere near sport. 

I don't think that has much to do with the rest of the discussion. The NFL extorts stadiums, I 100% agree. But that doesn't mean that their collective actions haven't contributed massively to becoming the juggernaut they are. Just because one aspect of their business isn't applicable or desirable doesn't mean you can't learn from other parts.

Quote

Overall, I think you are keen to demand 'fair' when it economically benefits your clubs and then want the special exemptions when it , again, benefits your clubs. If you won't even accept minimum player quotas or to pay for travel when you are literally on another continent I fear that you are making no attempt to build bridges at a time when Toronto just took the pish massively out of everyone who would support expansion.

No, I just think that English RL needs to decide what they want and commit. If they want to be international / transatlantic, they need to commit to that and go all in, in order to actually achieve the potential benefits that presents. Or if they don't, say so and end the experiment. But begrudgingly accepting and then fighting against it the whole way will never allow it to realize that potential. 

Quote

Remember, it would be fair to boot Toronto into the Championship and to (now that the potential new owner has said he'll only pay debts on condition of a Super League place) extinction. 

It would be, sure. But they way I read it,  they have a potential owner saying,  if you let us stay, I'd buy in. "Super League or bust" I took to mean this year regarding the buy-in. He'll buy if they stay, he won't if they don't.  I do not take it to mean that he wants future guarantees to stay in SL. Maybe I'm wrong,  but that's my interpretation and it hasn't been explicitly stated what his requirements are. 

Players getting paid is a byproduct of buying the club. He'll pay debts as part of ownership.  It's his ownership that is conditional, not the the payment. 

Quote

So that would be it. 14 teams, 4 protected sports, minimum home grown quotas  and get your own tv deal.

Will you happy to continue with your 2 million Sky pounds if TWP gets $10million from Rogers in the future?

Quote

If you can't generate your own tv deal anyway

The Canadian rights to Super League were bought and sold before TwP existed. They haven't been allowed to generate their own deal.

Quote

then the economics would show that expansion into NA isn't viable. Even if you got a lesser deal to start with split between two clubs (say 2 million canadian dollars a year so roughly half a million british pounds each) that would still be a significant boost to your budgets and somewhere to grow from. 

And that modest deal would evaporate when the teams aren't competitive.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I would go 14 or 15 maximum teams with the protected spots for France and Canada with no relegation for them. I think Toulouse need to be given time to grow and develop players and the game, free of worry. 

How totally insensitive that remark is, offer that scenario to any number of teams give them full funding and watch them grow free of worry.

This protection racket you are so in favour of makes a mockery of any sporting league system, why not just canvass for abolishing P&R and sort out SL by a invitational selection process, then sit back and watch the game in the UK erode away.

[Harry Stottle]

.

[Harry Stottle]

.

[Harry Stottle]

.

[Harry Stottle]

.

[Harry Stottle]

.

[Harry Stottle]

Don't know what happened there.

[CanadianRugger]

21 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

That's fine,  the ideal number of spots is pretty debatable.  16 is optimistic, based on wanting to include everyone,  but might not be viable right away. 

But they can monetize that, I said exactly how.  Advertising by international companies operating in multiple countries. Sky would pay for UK broadcast rights,  and in turn sell UK subscriptions in the UK and sell advertising on those channels. Some of those advertisers would be league - wide sponsors who will (ideally) be higher value than they currently. 

Okay,  so as you've shown there's one way, as others have explained the NHL and NFL do it another way. But only one way seems (to me) to be enticing enough to all parties to be viable. We've seen how much the current financial situation leads to fighting over what would be scraps in one of the big leagues. It needs to be equal so that as the value changes in each market,  all will benefit, and the certainty of equality will prevent in-fighting.

Also reasonable, again debatable and subject to negotiation.

They very well might. Or, they go all in on Canadian talent and despite their best efforts,  continue to struggle in perpetuity. We don't know the future.

Equal TV money is not a benefit, is equality. And I have already said I'd accept a quota as a trade off for inclusion if it came to that. I can still put forward my arguments about the value of certain policies.

I don't think that has much to do with the rest of the discussion. The NFL extorts stadiums, I 100% agree. But that doesn't mean that their collective actions haven't contributed massively to becoming the juggernaut they are. Just because one aspect of their business isn't applicable or desirable doesn't mean you can't learn from other parts.

No, I just think that English RL needs to decide what they want and commit. If they want to be international / transatlantic, they need to commit to that and go all in, in order to actually achieve the potential benefits that presents. Or if they don't, say so and end the experiment. But begrudgingly accepting and then fighting against it the whole way will never allow it to realize that potential. 

It would be, sure. But they way I read it,  they have a potential owner saying,  if you let us stay, I'd buy in. "Super League or bust" I took to mean this year regarding the buy-in. He'll buy if they stay, he won't if they don't.  I do not take it to mean that he wants future guarantees to stay in SL. Maybe I'm wrong,  but that's my interpretation and it hasn't been explicitly stated what his requirements are. 

Players getting paid is a byproduct of buying the club. He'll pay debts as part of ownership.  It's his ownership that is conditional, not the the payment. 

Will you happy to continue with your 2 million Sky pounds if TWP gets $10million from Rogers in the future?

The Canadian rights to Super League were bought and sold before TwP existed. They haven't been allowed to generate their own deal.

And that modest deal would evaporate when the teams aren't competitive.

Good post.  As I indicated above, the SKY deal is really quite garbage.  NHL clubs have National Broadcasting deals but they also have the ability to go out and get their own local deals. The Toronto Maple Leafs local tv deal is worth far more than the National Broadcast deal.  Sportsnet pays the Leafs $700,000 a game for local TV broadcasting rights.  

TWP have no ability to get a local TV deal at present because SKY has a 100% monopoly on TV Broadcasts, they sell those to Sportsnet here and they go on a Sportsnet pay channel for pennies.

It's the most archaic deal ever and harkens back to the early 1990s and DirecTV here.  I didn't even think people still had satellite dishes, they certainly don't in North America, especially not in densely populated areas.

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

How totally insensitive that remark is, offer that scenario to any number of teams give them full funding and watch them grow free of worry.

This protection racket you are so in favour of makes a mockery of any sporting league system, why not just canvass for abolishing P&R and sort out SL by a invitational selection process, then sit back and watch the game in the UK erode away.

Ok Harry calm down we get the point. 

[TheReaper]

15 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

I didn't even think people still had satellite dishes, they certainly don't in North America, especially not in densely populated areas.

Oh we still do in Canada  iit's the only way to get TV in the country.  My family only upgraded from antenna to satellite in like 2012

[TIWIT]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't know what happened there.

Fell asleep on the keyboard?

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

Fell asleep on the keyboard?

Yep it's called the "Toronto Syndrome" 

[TIWIT]

19 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Good post.  As I indicated above, the SKY deal is really quite garbage.  NHL clubs have National Broadcasting deals but they also have the ability to go out and get their own local deals. The Toronto Maple Leafs local tv deal is worth far more than the National Broadcast deal.  Sportsnet pays the Leafs $700,000 a game for local TV broadcasting rights.  

TWP have no ability to get a local TV deal at present because SKY has a 100% monopoly on TV Broadcasts, they sell those to Sportsnet here and they go on a Sportsnet pay channel for pennies.

It's the most archaic deal ever and harkens back to the early 1990s and DirecTV here.  I didn't even think people still had satellite dishes, they certainly don't in North America, especially not in densely populated areas.

The Leafs broadcasting deal is probably unique in sports because their parent company - MLSE - is co-owned by two very large national broadcasters (Roger's SN and Bell's TSN) - who divy up the non-national games between them (the Raptors have a similar deal). 

But no one really knows how much those deals are worth because it's all really internal bookkeeping, just shuffling a few million from one part of the company to another.

Same with the Blue Jays. What are their TV rights worth when their national broadcaster is just another branch of their ownership group.

And then of course there are radio rights, divied up just like the TV rights. And increasingly internet streaming rights.

[TIWIT]

Following up on my previous comment, do Super League clubs even have local radio deals? I know games on aired on the local BBC station but do the club's get paid anything for this?

[TBone]

7 hours ago, Derwent said:

So using your logic if Toronto were ever to suffer relegation then the club would have no value to him outside of SL and he’d walk away. He either wants the club warts and all or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t then goodbye and good riddance.

Which is why no sane million/billionaire would 'invest' in any new(ish) venture in RL, especially if they don't get a cut of the TV rights money. What you are seeking is a benefactor not a business proposition.

FWIW I have always thought it madness to start a club in a country several thousand miles away from the competition(s) that it will play in. Especially when the governing body doesn't have a strategic plan (full stop? but oh, shucks...)  that includes expansion in your direction.