The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[TIWIT]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Comparing CFL (Canada only) is stupid and I am a big fan of the CFL (NFL not so much) what the CFL has is a solid fanbase with an average of 80000/100000 for 4 matches every weekend.

We would love to have that.

 

P 

Back in their heyday Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver would draw 50,000 a game.

Other teams probably could have done the same had their stadiums been bigger.

[dealwithit]

Problem is, you have a select group saying “we need a strategic plan” and “a vision.”

Then you get someone of the calibre of Richard Lewis who makes plenty of tough calls and then gets poached by Tennis. You replace him and revert all his changes. 

Now the truth is the calibre of leaders at the RFL and SL clubs is very low. 

What they need to do (like any major business) is bring in consultants to create a roadmap. Some won’t like the outcome, but if it’s a roadmap to revenue, sustainability, and a larger fanbase, then that’s just the way it is. Plus, investors are more likely to come on board with a strategic plan devised by Bain or BCG. 

[TIWIT]

41 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

Problem is, you have a select group saying “we need a strategic plan” and “a vision.”

Then you get someone of the calibre of Richard Lewis who makes plenty of tough calls and then gets poached by Tennis. You replace him and revert all his changes. 

Now the truth is the calibre of leaders at the RFL and SL clubs is very low. 

What they need to do (like any major business) is bring in consultants to create a roadmap. Some won’t like the outcome, but if it’s a roadmap to revenue, sustainability, and a larger fanbase, then that’s just the way it is. Plus, investors are more likely to come on board with a strategic plan devised by Bain or BCG. 

Not a bad idea, although it won't be cheap and SL owners tend to be.

Then getting them all to sit down and agree to implement the consultant's plan would be akin to herding cats.

And then to ensure the plan is followed, hire a league president on a multi-year contract with the sole aim of achieving its goal, thereby sidelining the owners, who will have just the one option of firing the president to prevent him from achieving what they originally agreed to.

I figure it would take 3 years at most before the president is canned.

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, dealwithit said:

Now the truth is the calibre of leaders at the RFL and SL clubs is very low.  

This is the problem. For whatever reason RL has consistently failed to attract talented individuals at the administrative level, possibly because anyone with any talent or vision would find their plans stymied by the clubs acting in their own self interest. As I have repeated several times before I am pro expansion, I was introduced to the game one Sunday afternoon when I was working in London so I am proof that you don’t have to be from the heartlands to get this game. Sadly I believe that although the RFL wants to expand, it hasn’t a clue how to do it, which is why when someone comes along willing to set up a team in a new area, they snap their hand off without thinking how strategically this will work. In my time watching the game there have been all sorts of bizarre attempts in places like Mansfield (a backwater), Scarborough (a seaside resort and retirement home), Maidstone (where?) and Bridgend (another backwater). Now to add to these we have clubs being formed in Canada which appear to be unwanted by the majority of RL fans and club owners and the RFLs criteria for admitting them seems to be “no cost to us”, rather than an actual plan to break into North America. The vast majority of past failures were usually down to 

a. A lack of money

b. A lack of patience from owners (usually because they underestimated the cost of the new venture)

c. A lack of support/expansion strategy from the RFL

Sadly until there is a major change at the top in the RFL then it’s just going to continue and if that happens the whole future of the sport in the Northern Hemisphere has to be bleak.

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, Oldbear said:

This is the problem. For whatever reason RL has consistently failed to attract talented individuals at the administrative level, possibly because anyone with any talent or vision would find their plans stymied by the clubs acting in their own self interest. As I have repeated several times before I am pro expansion, I was introduced to the game one Sunday afternoon when I was working in London so I am proof that you don’t have to be from the heartlands to get this game. Sadly I believe that although the RFL wants to expand, it hasn’t a clue how to do it, which is why when someone comes along willing to set up a team in a new area, they snap their hand off without thinking how strategically this will work. In my time watching the game there have been all sorts of bizarre attempts in places like Mansfield (a backwater), Scarborough (a seaside resort and retirement home), Maidstone (where?) and Bridgend (another backwater). Now to add to these we have clubs being formed in Canada which appear to be unwanted by the majority of RL fans and club owners and the RFLs criteria for admitting them seems to be “no cost to us”, rather than an actual plan to break into North America. The vast majority of past failures were usually down to 

a. A lack of money

b. A lack of patience from owners (usually because they underestimated the cost of the new venture)

c. A lack of support/expansion strategy from the RFL

Sadly until there is a major change at the top in the RFL then it’s just going to continue and if that happens the whole future of the sport in the Northern Hemisphere has to be bleak.

IMHO it is about leadership.  If a leader passionately believes that expansion is way forward then he has to convince the SL clubs as to the short term and long term benefits.  Our game has no leader that can/will/able to do this and as we have seen the lesser clubs in terms of attracting income feel threatened and will probably vote against TWP, not because they think there is no short or long term gain, in reality they couldn’t give a chuff about that, but all they are thinking about is keepIng their club above the water.

I can just vision the 11 SL club chairmen sat around a large circular table.  A rep from SKY enters the room and plonks the annual pot of TV distribution money in the middle of the table.  You have some SL Chairmen who look at the money and think ‘We could do better’ and you have some SL Chairmen who are positively slobbering thinking ‘This will keep the club going for one more year’.  

This mentality will IMHO see a gradual decline with the end game being back to semi pro.  

 

[Man of Kent]

8 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Comparing CFL (Canada only) is stupid and I am a big fan of the CFL (NFL not so much) what the CFL has is a solid fanbase with an average of 80000/100000 for 4 matches every weekend.

We would love to have that.

 

P 

I only use it to highlight to our more naive Canadian cousins why a ‘massive money’ Canadian TV deal for Super League is unrealistic.

A Toronto rugby league team (& Ottawa for that matter) playing in Super League would be - is - of niche TV interest in Canada due to it being a relatively smalltime foreign thing with a negligible cultural footprint. 

I suppose that’s why they are now demanding an equal share of UK TV money despite having a minuscule ‘fanbase’ who can buy Sky subscriptions and contributing nothing to the player pool. 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

 

I can just vision the 11 SL club chairmen sat around a large circular table.  A rep from SKY enters the room and plonks the annual pot of TV distribution money in the middle of the table.  You have some SL Chairmen who look at the money and think ‘We could do better’ and you have some SL Chairmen who are positively slobbering thinking ‘This will keep the club going for one more year’.  

 

What are the consequences if they refuse the SKY deal ? 

[yipyee]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What are the consequences if they refuse the SKY deal ? 

Sky come back with a better offer?

Administrators actually earning their money and getting an alternative deal?

No TV will not happen, 

[ckn]

10 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Sky come back with a better offer?

Administrators actually earning their money and getting an alternative deal?

No TV will not happen, 

Rugby union's clubs in England tried that, Sky shrugged and were happy to see them go to BT Sport where they get far fewer people watching than even Sky's locked viewing. Sky care about football, football, football, F1, football, cricket, football and then try to get in another bit of football before sighing and then putting on other sports.

[Damien]

43 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What are the consequences if they refuse the SKY deal ? 

Super League tried that once. They then found no one else was interested and had to go back to Sky with their tail between their legs and accept a worse deal than the one they had originally turned down.

[GUBRATS]

31 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Sky come back with a better offer?

Administrators actually earning their money and getting an alternative deal?

No TV will not happen, 

See the 2 replys after yours for your answer 

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, ckn said:

Rugby union's clubs in England tried that, Sky shrugged and were happy to see them go to BT Sport where they get far fewer people watching than even Sky's locked viewing. Sky care about football, football, football, F1, football, cricket, football and then try to get in another bit of football before sighing and then putting on other sports.

I honestly believe that we will have a singular choice of broadcaster to choose from that being Sky, what they put on the table will not be bettered by anyone else, I'm afraid as far as our negotiators are concerned it will be a "Thank you Sir".

All this specualtion of paying for 'streaming' will not happen, Rugby League needs a guaranteed income, at least 6 teams in SL are totally dependent on a guaranteed income and the others will struggle without it.

[Derwent]

39 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Sky come back with a better offer?

Administrators actually earning their money and getting an alternative deal?

No TV will not happen, 

Are you aware that a few years ago the RFL hired IMG, the world’s leading company on sports marketing and licencing etc, to handle the TV contract negotiations. Even they with all of their expertise could not get a better offer from Sky or get other broadcasters interested. That’s the reality of the situation.

Still, I’m sure you know better than them hey ?

[GUBRATS]

51 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Sky come back with a better offer?

Administrators actually earning their money and getting an alternative deal?

No TV will not happen, 

As it seems you aren't as quick to answer others ' butting in ' , I'll answer my own question to Adelaide Tiger 

We end up with a considerably worse deal , that means the RFL have a financial crisis , the lower tiers and UK based expansion clubs face a financial crisis , the poorer SL clubs face a crisis that threatens their ability to function full time and therefore puts SL itself in danger , once lost , we might not get it back 

There has been much posted over the last few days on this thread , lots of it by people who rally don't understand the situation , foremost is survival , no survival will mean no expansion or growth , we cannot just rip up what we have and be able to start again , to do that will signal the end 

All IMO of course 

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

See the 2 replys after yours for your answer 

Ha for a one eyed view of an answer?

So go to BT and get more money or stay on sky for less but more people watch,

With that attitude we should be on bbc then as there willl be higher viewers.

 

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I honestly believe that we will have a singular choice of broadcaster to choose from that being Sky, what they put on the table will not be bettered by anyone else, I'm afraid as far as our negotiators are concerned it will be a "Thank you Sir".

All this specualtion of paying for 'streaming' will not happen, Rugby League needs a guaranteed income, at least 6 teams in SL are totally dependent on a guaranteed income and the others will struggle without it.

I agree on the streaming, the only way this will happen is if RFL produce their own content and sell the stream. This is how other sports do it.

[yipyee]

50 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As it seems you aren't as quick to answer others ' butting in ' , I'll answer my own question to Adelaide Tiger 

We end up with a considerably worse deal , that means the RFL have a financial crisis , the lower tiers and UK based expansion clubs face a financial crisis , the poorer SL clubs face a crisis that threatens their ability to function full time and therefore puts SL itself in danger , once lost , we might not get it back 

There has been much posted over the last few days on this thread , lots of it by people who rally don't understand the situation , foremost is survival , no survival will mean no expansion or growth , we cannot just rip up what we have and be able to start again , to do that will signal the end 

All IMO of course 

The uk based expansion clubs face a financial crisis ? How they dont get a cur of the tv deal so they would be in a better position

You are right about the lack of growth will be the beginning of the end

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

Are you aware that a few years ago the RFL hired IMG, the world’s leading company on sports marketing and licencing etc, to handle the TV contract negotiations. Even they with all of their expertise could not get a better offer from Sky or get other broadcasters interested. That’s the reality of the situation.

Still, I’m sure you know better than them hey ?

I am aware koukash who is a sucsessful buisnessman laughed at the proposal and said whats plan B and we should reject the first offer, 

The response was we dont negotiate we just accept.

We then lost an asset to the game.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

Ha for a one eyed view of an answer?

So go to BT and get more money or stay on sky for less but more people watch,

With that attitude we should be on bbc then as there willl be higher viewers.

 

If you ignore the punters who can’t go to live games then you’re effectively turning the game into a rich man’s toy all about the money.

Sky has been a long-term good compromise for our sport. FTA broadcasters can’t give enough money for us to stay alive, and Sky’s large numbers of subscribers give good accessibility for our fans.

[ckn]

In fact, the only time Sky have really tried to play hardball with us was when we played hardball with them first over the new contract

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

As it seems you aren't as quick to answer others ' butting in ' , I'll answer my own question to Adelaide Tiger 

We end up with a considerably worse deal , that means the RFL have a financial crisis , the lower tiers and UK based expansion clubs face a financial crisis , the poorer SL clubs face a crisis that threatens their ability to function full time and therefore puts SL itself in danger , once lost , we might not get it back 

There has been much posted over the last few days on this thread , lots of it by people who rally don't understand the situation , foremost is survival , no survival will mean no expansion or growth , we cannot just rip up what we have and be able to start again , to do that will signal the end 

All IMO of course 

At no point did I state anything about SL clubs refusing the SKY deal.  That was you as usual trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

My point was the fact that we have 2 groups of clubs in SL. One group of clubs see SKY money as a way to keep themselves going so have little desire to try something different as it may not be beneficial to them whilst the other group have more financial muscle so may consider different approaches in an effort to be more attractive to investors and TV.

The latter view could increase TV revenue in the long term whilst the prior view IMHO about just seeing survival as a victory just retains the status quo and in the long term could lead to a further reduction in SKY money and leads to the scenario that you paint in your final paragraph.

[yipyee]

23 minutes ago, ckn said:

In fact, the only time Sky have really tried to play hardball with us was when we played hardball with them first over the new contract

To negotiate there needs to be a second party interested

Sky called our bluff 

When we got a better tv deal we got less coverage so for me were worse off

[yipyee]

19 minutes ago, ckn said:

If you ignore the punters who can’t go to live games then you’re effectively turning the game into a rich man’s toy all about the money.

Sky has been a long-term good compromise for our sport. FTA broadcasters can’t give enough money for us to stay alive, and Sky’s large numbers of subscribers give good accessibility for our fans.

If people pay for sky just for RL then they would subscribe to whichever service this was on.

Football fans and pubs subscribed to setanta and now bt to watch the games

And lets be honest an armchair fan gets good value for money compared to ST holders, 

I imagined elstone came on board with a focus on tv deals and the fella before him who was chairman of the FA claimed to have experience with tv didnt he work for ITV or something.

For me we need to commit to fully televising each game and then selling the product.

Its fairer for the video ref and is also why people are getting caught out with squirrel tackles etc.. lets remember all 3 were missed by the ref and its only that we have the multiple camera views that we can review incidents properly.

[ckn]

10 minutes ago, yipyee said:

To negotiate there needs to be a second party interested

Sky called our bluff 

When we got a better tv deal we got less coverage so for me were worse off

Last time round there were no other parties interested who’d give us more than a token amount or promises that we’d get more than also-ran status to all their other sports. Sky can give us that simply because they have so many sports channels, they also put a good few games on the free channel to Sky subscribers who aren’t Sports subscribers.

Show me who’d give anywhere near close to what we get in both money and accessibility and you may have a point. Sky know there’s not. We’re not union with their well-promoted ABC1 fan base who bring in the bigger advertisers.

[Scubby]

To be honest, and I only speak for myself here, but I would not subscribe to a dedicated RL service at the moment. In fact, I stopped Sky in the close season for the first time in my adult life.

Super League has a quality and image issue at the moment. I don't live in the heartlands anymore so don't have an ear to the ground. It doesn't feel aspirational anymore, it feels like the game and clubs are covering their backsides. I didn't like the Catalans Challenge Cup bond fiasco. The way the Toronto issue is unfolding also makes you feel like everyone is looking at the coins left in the pot now and not how prosperous the game could be in new markets. 

If 2020 has taught us anything it is that RL cannot run a model on derbies, away fans and central handouts, hoping to cover full time squads (with some elite players barely earning £15,000 a year).