Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TBone said:

What you are seeking is a benefactor not a business proposition.

Now you are actually getting it TBone, you will find most of the owners of our clubs over here are usyally local lads done good they invest in their clubs because they want to  their motive is not a buisness venture to make money it is a feeling of belonging.

Our Canadian friends on here have as they keep telling us have been brought up with sporting club owners and organisations who want to make money, there is a time when the realisation will be that Rugby League in the UK will never ever transpose itself into a national game, the interest of the public at large will never be there, in work I travelled the length and breadth of these Isles for over 30 years always trying to convince people what they are missing, most are fans of the round ball game and can't even differentiate that there are 2 forms of rugby, you guys need to accept that, as much as it pains me I have come to realise that will always be the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 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. 

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.

 

Yes it is "whatabboutism".  Toronto's case for a share of the TV money isn't just the principle of treating every team in a league equally, it's also about attracting more British viewers to watch it, viewers in places like London, Birmingham or Bristol who'll never care about Leeds vs. Some-little-town-they'll-never-give-a-######-about but could be very interested in Leeds vs. Toronto or New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Now you are actually getting it TBone, you will find most of the owners of our clubs over here are usyally local lads done good they invest in their clubs because they want to  their motive is not a buisness venture to make money it is a feeling of belonging.

Our Canadian friends on here have as they keep telling us have been brought up with sporting club owners and organisations who want to make money, there is a time when the realisation will be that Rugby League in the UK will never ever transpose itself into a national game, the interest of the public at large will never be there, in work I travelled the length and breadth of these Isles for over 30 years always trying to convince people what they are missing, most are fans of the round ball game and can't even differentiate that there are 2 forms of rugby, you guys need to accept that, as much as it pains me I have come to realise that will always be the way. 

Then RL needs a way to change that reality, otherwise it's doomed to continuing decline and eventual extinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

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.

All NHL clubs have quite large local TV rights.  

Forbes has a list here:

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlh45eemg/3-montreal-canadiens/#764d9db36ff7

The largest is actually Montreal, who receive $61 Million a year from Réseau des Sports.  

You are right though that many clubs don't publish this.  Boston doesn't publish how much this receive from NESN but you can imagine that it is quite substantial given how popular the Bruins are.

The NHL also has their own network as do many clubs themselves.  This is really the problem with Rugby League TV broadcasting, it basically only caters to one type of fan, the diehard, who will be the one that buys a SKY dish just to watch the few games they do show.  The NHL and other leagues have cracked the TV game, they have different levels of broadcasting that target different groups of fans: casuals who will watch the odd game, people only interested in one team, diehards, etc.

I am really only interested in watching TWP and the Major games, i.e. Challenge Cup Final, Grand Final, etc.  I have no interest in watching a random match of the week between two clubs I have no interest in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TBone said:

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.

Apart from the USA there are very very few sports clubs around the world that make money. Even in football, the biggest sport in the world, there a tiny handful that are profitable to any serious level. In Europe certainly most sports clubs are seen as rich men’s toys and not business investments. There are very few clubs that provide any meaningful return on investment, the best that they can hope for is that the intrinsic value grows to make it worth more than they paid for it. Different cultures I guess, but the people running the clubs over here do not do so to make money. The likes of Davy, Hudgell etc have spent millions for very little in return, it’s pretty much philanthropy.

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jayme2020 said:

I think Rogers and bell would pay massive money for tv rightS if Toronto and Otatwa were in the SL.

They would definitely be willing to pay something.  Again, it's all about having a Tiered broadcasting setup with different access options and associated costs for different types of fans.

You could have a Canadian Broadcasting deal for just the Canadian Teams, you could also have a local broadcasting deal if all you are interested in watching is your local club.  If you want to watch every single game, you can pay for a package with greater access options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Apart from the USA there are very very few sports clubs around the world that make money. Even in football, the biggest sport in the world, there a tiny handful that are profitable to any serious level. In Europe certainly most sports clubs are seen as rich men’s toys and not business investments. There are very few clubs that provide any meaningful return on investment, the best that they can hope for is that the intrinsic value grows to make it worth more than they paid for it. Different cultures I guess, but the people running the clubs over here do not do so to make money. The likes of Davy, Hudgell etc have spent millions for very little in return, it’s pretty much philanthropy.

That's because the business models are different.  Decades of experience in at least 5 sports has proven that the franchised North American model is the way to make investment in a major league pro sports franchise a profitable investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Apart from the USA there are very very few sports clubs around the world that make money. Even in football, the biggest sport in the world, there a tiny handful that are profitable to any serious level. In Europe certainly most sports clubs are seen as rich men’s toys and not business investments. There are very few clubs that provide any meaningful return on investment, the best that they can hope for is that the intrinsic value grows to make it worth more than they paid for it. Different cultures I guess, but the people running the clubs over here do not do so to make money. The likes of Davy, Hudgell etc have spent millions for very little in return, it’s pretty much philanthropy.

I'm calling BS on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

Many sports leagues make all sorts of money and many also turn a nice profit.  I think you'll note that the above is a uniquely British issue.  Super League is way down the list btw, it's clubs make about as much as the Egyptian Football League in terms of revenue.  

That is the issue with the sport of RL in the Northern Hemisphere, it isn't a money making sport but it could be with a new vision and strategy.  It should be as profitable as the NRL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Would a British broadcaster pay massive money if ‘Manchester Manics’ played in the Canadian Football League, I wonder. 

Canadian Football doesn't have a global appeal the way Rugby does.  Rugby has global appeal and is played around the globe, in some form or another.  The problem is that Rugby (both codes) is ultra-conservative and is about 50 years behind every other sport in terms of actually running and administering itself like a proper PROFESSIONAL sport.

I can go to any Country in the World and will most likely find a Rugby Club throwing a Rugby Ball around, either playing XVs or XIIIs.  You can't do the same thing with Gridiron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CanadianRugger said:

Canadian Football doesn't have a global appeal the way Rugby does.  Rugby has global appeal and is played around the globe, in some form or another.  The problem is that Professional Rugby (both codes) is ultra-conservative and is about 50 years behind every other sport in terms of actually running and administering itself like a proper PROFESSIONAL sport.

I can go to any Country in the World and will most likely find a Rugby Club throwing a Rugby Ball around, either playing XVs or XIIIs.  You can't do the same thing with Gridiron.

That’s a no, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Canadian Football doesn't have a global appeal the way Rugby does.  Rugby has global appeal and is played around the globe, in some form or another.  The problem is that Rugby (both codes) is ultra-conservative and is about 50 years behind every other sport in terms of actually running and administering itself like a proper PROFESSIONAL sport.

I can go to any Country in the World and will most likely find a Rugby Club throwing a Rugby Ball around, either playing XVs or XIIIs.  You can't do the same thing with Gridiron.

This is wrong.... but as its Saturday night and I'm already way down a bottle of cab sauv, I will reserve a considered response till later.

Rule 4.3.... no Internet output when glass full.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

That’s a no, then.

Would the Manchester Manics have 8k fans a match?  Doubtful.  Toronto Wolfpack have a proven fanbase and demand for the product, the issue is that the League they play in is not optimized or structured to take advantage of this product.  That needs to change if they are to be successful.

Like I said above, you are #60 in terms of revenue in the World, right between the Romanian and Egyptian Football Leagues.  I would hope Super League aspires to be bigger than the Romanian Football League someday?

As far as the CFL is concerned, Super League isn't even in the same ballpark.  CFL teams pull in around 4.5x the revenue that the average Super League clubs do annually, and that's for a field sport played on grass in a Country that experiences harsh Winters.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

This is wrong.... but as its Saturday night and I'm already way down a bottle of cab sauv, I will reserve a considered response till later.

Rule 4.3.... no Internet output when glass full.....

Great contribution to the thread, about what I expect from the peanut gallery on this forum.  Time to back your statements up with some facts.  

Or go have another drink 😉

It's even worse when you compare actual revenues of clubs per match.  Super League teams pull in about as much as the Azerbaijan Football League.  I am glad Super League aspires to compete with Azerbaijan Football League for revenues 🙂 oh and the WNBA 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Would the Manchester Manics have 8k fans a match?  Doubtful.  Toronto Wolfpack have a proven fanbase and demand for the product, the issue is that the League they play in is not optimized or structured to take advantage of this product.  That needs to change if they are to be successful.

Like I said above, you are #60 in terms of revenue in the World, right between the Romanian and Egyptian Football Leagues.  I would hope Super League aspires to be bigger than the Romanian Football League someday?

As far as the CFL is concerned, Super League isn't even in the same ballpark.  CFL teams pull in around 4.5x the revenue that the average Super League clubs do annually, and that's for a field sport played on grass in a Country that experiences harsh Winters.

Still a no...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

And now you are just trolling 🙂

You didn’t answer the question (because you knew the answer).

If the ‘Manics’ played in the CFL you would find there is some interest in Manchester but the rest of the UK basically wouldn’t give a monkey’s once the novelty had worn off, and Sky certainly wouldn’t be paying ‘massive money’ to show the CFL here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

I'm calling BS on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

Many sports leagues make all sorts of money and many also turn a nice profit.  I think you'll note that the above is a uniquely British issue.  Super League is way down the list btw, it's clubs make about as much as the Egyptian Football League in terms of revenue.  

That is the issue with the sport of RL in the Northern Hemisphere, it isn't a money making sport but it could be with a new vision and strategy.  It should be as profitable as the NRL.  

Revenue and profit aren’t the same thing.

In 2018/19 the Premier League clubs had combined revenue of over £5 billion. Those same clubs had collective losses of £599 million in the same period. Go figure.

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

That's because the business models are different.  Decades of experience in at least 5 sports has proven that the franchised North American model is the way to make investment in a major league pro sports franchise a profitable investment.

In America 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

That's because the business models are different.  Decades of experience in at least 5 sports has proven that the franchised North American model is the way to make investment in a major league pro sports franchise a profitable investment.

In America 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

I'm calling BS on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

Many sports leagues make all sorts of money and many also turn a nice profit.  I think you'll note that the above is a uniquely British issue.  Super League is way down the list btw, it's clubs make about as much as the Egyptian Football League in terms of revenue.  

That is the issue with the sport of RL in the Northern Hemisphere, it isn't a money making sport but it could be with a new vision and strategy.  It should be as profitable as the NRL.  

You do realise there's a difference between governing bodies and clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what makes the States so unique that they can have so many sports teams in so many sports leagues all making money (well, most of them anyway).

Competition. Americans love sports, but no more than any other country. And there are a lot of Americans. But there are also 4 huge OTA broadcast networks and they all have multiple cable nets devoted to sports. That requires a LOT of programming and thus far the networks are willing to pay for it. Which equals rich sports teams, owners, and athletes.

I don't know enough about the broadcasting situation in other countries to comment but it seems to me the more private broadcasters a country has the more competition for sports rights there will be and the more money to be made.

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.