Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I am amazed that it seems only failed businessmen have ended up owning RL clubs ? 🤔

If that were true then Donald Trump would own half the League!

He even has experience at it. He owned the New York Generals in the USFL back in the mid-80s and pushed the League into moving from a spring schedule where they were semi-successful into the fall... where they were crushed and gone in a year.

Again, at Trump's urging, the league sued the NFL for restraint of trade - and the USFL eventually won. 

They were awarded $1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’d be happy with back in Super League + refundable bond repaid upon completed season with players & bills paid + travel costs (if there is any travel...) + no funding. I’d only want Toronto to receive funding if there are player development strings attached.

The problem with that is the they and no other Super League club get money for player development. They provide a TV product which sky pays for and the RFL/SL decide to take a percentage to give to the lower divisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So if this isn't you suggesting club owners refusing the SKY deal , what is it ?

I responded on page 288 about what I am suggesting but it appears you either did not bother to read it or you are winding me up.  Reluctantly I will go with the former.

Firstly, I have never stated/expounded/elucidated that SL clubs should refuse SKY money.  Can we be clear about that.

My argument is based on the article a few pages ago that highlighted that the 5 clubs that generate most income are supposedly keen on retaining TWP for season 2021.  The only assumption that I can draw from this is that these clubs see expansion as being a different offering to prospective TV companies which MAY result in better deals in future years both in the UK and other jurisdictions.

The article also stated that the 6 teams that have lower incomes appear to be against readmitting TWP.  WHY?  It is my belief that these clubs feel more threatened by TWP so by voting against TWP these clubs are purely protecting their own interest and suddenly have around £163k more.  Also those clubs may have one years grace from relegation should SL return with an 11 team league.  Some of these clubs rely very heavily on SKY money as they have an inability/lack of ability to bring in greater income.  So these clubs are content or even desperate to take the SKY money every year and choose not to support a different offering.

So I am saying that it may be more advantageous for all clubs to view expansion as a means to try to generate greater income in future years.  However, you can readily argue that it may not lead to greater income but In my view it is better to give something different a go than rely on SKY suddenly offering more money for the same product that they have had for 25 years.

My greatest fear is that if the game decides to retain the status quo then it is quite feasible that future TV deals will be less each time.  This may lead to the top clubs forming a 6, 8 or 10 league breakaway?  Would you want this? That would surely lead to the binning of P&R that you want to preserve.

Now that I have hopefully explained myself, why don’t you tell me how by ditching TWP and expansion this will lead to SKY or other Media companies offering more money in future deals for the same old product.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I responded on page 288 about what I am suggesting but it appears you either did not bother to read it or you are winding me up.  Reluctantly I will go with the former.

Firstly, I have never stated/expounded/elucidated that SL clubs should refuse SKY money.  Can we be clear about that.

My argument is based on the article a few pages ago that highlighted that the 5 clubs that generate most income are supposedly keen on retaining TWP for season 2021.  The only assumption that I can draw from this is that these clubs see expansion as being a different offering to prospective TV companies which MAY result in better deals in future years both in the UK and other jurisdictions.

The article also stated that the 6 teams that have lower incomes appear to be against readmitting TWP.  WHY?  It is my belief that these clubs feel more threatened by TWP so by voting against TWP these clubs are purely protecting their own interest and suddenly have around £163k more.  Also those clubs may have one years grace from relegation should SL return with an 11 team league.  Some of these clubs rely very heavily on SKY money as they have an inability/lack of ability to bring in greater income.  So these clubs are content or even desperate to take the SKY money every year and choose not to support a different offering.

So I am saying that it may be more advantageous for all clubs to view expansion as a means to try to generate greater income in future years.  However, you can readily argue that it may not lead to greater income but In my view it is better to give something different a go than rely on SKY suddenly offering more money for the same product that they have had for 25 years.

My greatest fear is that if the game decides to retain the status quo then it is quite feasible that future TV deals will be less each time.  This may lead to the top clubs forming a 6, 8 or 10 league breakaway?  Would you want this? That would surely lead to the binning of P&R that you want to preserve.

I fully understand your point , but again , what are you suggesting they do ? 

You combine the expansion argument with accepting what you consider is a poor broadcasting deal 

They are 2 different issues and are not connected 

We constantly see people on here criticising club owners as useless , and yet they've got themselves into a position to be a club owner , it's just a shame that those on here who seem to have all the answers haven't managed to get to that position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The problem with that is the they and no other Super League club get money for player development. They provide a TV product which sky pays for and the RFL/SL decide to take a percentage to give to the lower divisions.

Not sure that’s right. Doesn’t Super League fund academies? And Sky Try? I believe the RFL doles out its central funding to Champ clubs partially based on player development.

I’m totally fine with not funding Toronto unless there are strings attached. After all, what is the purpose here?

Is it to look good on TV while pretending - like the Emperor’s New Clothes - that Toronto means rugby league is played in Canada? Or do we want rugby league actually played in Canada? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The problem with that is the they and no other Super League club get money for player development. They provide a TV product which sky pays for and the RFL/SL decide to take a percentage to give to the lower divisions.

There has to be a clear benefit to SL for TWP's inclusion. Expansion for expansion's sake is futile. SL must not be afraid of making the right decision whether that's inclusion or rejection.

Attaching conditions on the deal i.e. player development and/or other KPI is not a ridiculous idea. Otherwise the uk player pool is just exported.

There has to be a clear vision of what is expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Not sure that’s right. Doesn’t Super League fund academies? And Sky Try? I believe the RFL doles out its central funding to Champ clubs partially based on player development.

I’m totally fine with not funding Toronto unless there are strings attached. After all, what is the purpose here?

Is it to look good on TV while pretending - like the Emperor’s New Clothes - that Toronto means rugby league is played in Canada? Or do we want rugby league actually played in Canada? 

AFAIK the deal was that the sky deal would fund to the salary cap unless a club failed on stuff like facilities (Wakefield reportedly get less bc of this). Sky Try is an RFL initiative which is why London also do it iirc.

By extension, in a classic case of people in glass houses, Salford can't run an academy bc they don't have enough money and/or enough players. Both Hull clubs had to share an academy for 5 years or so because they had so little choice of youth players. I've never seen it reported any of these clubs receive less because of this?

Sky pay for a TV product which they want to be as competitive as possible. They also pay for a lot else. If we want to be reductive we'll end up paying clubs by TV audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

There has to be a clear benefit to SL for TWP's inclusion. Expansion for expansion's sake is futile. SL must not be afraid of making the right decision whether that's inclusion or rejection.

Attaching conditions on the deal i.e. player development and/or other KPI is not a ridiculous idea. Otherwise the uk player pool is just exported.

There has to be a clear vision of what is expected.

I think thats fair enough in a lot of ways, but does warrant the question of do we expect the same from our incumbents?

The same problems facing TWP now are the same that face Leigh, Fev, Halifax, London etc. There's a weird obsession with teams outside of SL proving their "worth" above and well beyond what the current teams have in Super League, when in reality, the (mainly lower end/most vulnerable as we've seen reported on this issue) Super League clubs don't want them in at all regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

Bit of a social media campaign from the players at the moment about letting TWP in so they don't lose their job. Whilst I can't blame them as individuals, it is clearly orchestrated and in bad taste tbh. 

I agree with McManus now on this that the bid needs to be looked at with clear heads. That means taking the emotion out of it and ultimately reviewing the proposal. There is a chance that this proposal will cost the SL comp £2.3m more than the previous agreement if central funding and expenses are funded by SL. That is a big shift, and the proposed owner will need to show serious plans for the thumbs up. 

I think there could be a middle ground of no central funding but no travel expenses paid by TWP in year 1, to central funding minus travel expenses in year 2, with full funding in year 3. 

So by the end of year 3 what do you expect Toronto's contribution to SL will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

AFAIK the deal was that the sky deal would fund to the salary cap unless a club failed on stuff like facilities (Wakefield reportedly get less bc of this). Sky Try is an RFL initiative which is why London also do it iirc.

By extension, in a classic case of people in glass houses, Salford can't run an academy bc they don't have enough money and/or enough players. Both Hull clubs had to share an academy for 5 years or so because they had so little choice of youth players. I've never seen it reported any of these clubs receive less because of this?

Sky pay for a TV product which they want to be as competitive as possible. They also pay for a lot else. If we want to be reductive we'll end up paying clubs by TV audiences.

Sky pay for the product, its up to the game what it does with it, although if we were just spending it on nonsense they'd think again about how much they pay. 

But it is important to remember that funding clubs absolutely contributes to development of the game and players. The likes of Salford are in their community week in week out, working in schools, local clubs, staging events, running foundations (delinked maybe), carrying out community work. 

I know it is fashionable to hate on the existing game and clubs but it ignores all the good work that goes on, stuff that when highlighted makes us proud, but we forget instantly on threads like this. 

All that activity, plus the actual rugby, underpins the game over here, we move that investment to Canada and we need to understand the impact of doing that. Particularly when that Canadian club is partly based in Rochdale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So by the end of year 3 what do you expect Toronto's contribution to SL will be?

They will be a relatively established SL club, and we either support that or don't. 

I have no issues with conditions around funding like others have mentioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael1812 said:

Toronto shouldn’t come back. I can’t see them ever working without being treated as equals and partners working together with the 11 other clubs to grow Super League and rightly so, some of the others clubs will not be in favour of that as with P/R, it is about survival. 

I am truly amazed it has taken this long for the whoever is in charge to make the decision. 

The fact that there has been no decision/announcement indicates there is much infighting going on around the table. 

But who are the naysayers? Is it just about Toronto or are other contingencies being discussed like P&R and a closed shop?

If I was the Chairman of one of those SL clubs who are the least well off in the division,  I would vote for retaining P&R  for next season at least and Toronto to be allowed back in, minus funding, with paid travel and subsistance in Canada for the visiting teams, and a 8 points reduction, that should assist them in securing their SL place for 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Sky pay for the product, its up to the game what it does with it, although if we were just spending it on nonsense they'd think again about how much they pay. 

But it is important to remember that funding clubs absolutely contributes to development of the game and players. The likes of Salford are in their community week in week out, working in schools, local clubs, staging events, running foundations (delinked maybe), carrying out community work. 

I know it is fashionable to hate on the existing game and clubs but it ignores all the good work that goes on, stuff that when highlighted makes us proud, but we forget instantly on threads like this. 

All that activity, plus the actual rugby, underpins the game over here, we move that investment to Canada and we need to understand the impact of doing that. Particularly when that Canadian club is partly based in Rochdale. 

Its not hating Dave, I fully want the whole game to work together, but it does become a people in glass houses situation very quickly when expectations are placed on new clubs.

I don't want to make a return to one of Parky's old hobby horses, but foundations aren't academies and realistically don't focus on rugby as the primary thing at all. They're not equivalent. 

The team are based in Rochdale true, but the club is Canadian. Unlike say PSG which seemed to be an RFL ran idea with French RL paying lip service, this is genuinely Canadian off field. I have little worry that TWP will grow that off field presence, but we shouldn't be judging them as particularly harshly than other clubs. Especially now we have Ottawa too, Canada seems as good an avenue as any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’d be happy with back in Super League + refundable bond repaid upon completed season with players & bills paid + travel costs (if there is any travel...) + no funding. I’d only want Toronto to receive funding if there are player development strings attached.

On the funding thing, why should Toronto be held to that more than any of the other SL clubs, theirs no stipulation in the funding that clubs get about player development is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's not a contribution Dave.

I've always been clear that real tangible benefits will be a long term piece, but having another stronger club with big crowds making big signings is a positive contribution, albeit a lot softer than cold hard cash. 

But at that point TWP will have been around for 7 years and if they are a stronger club in SL then we are on that journey at least and will be closer to commercial and media value and player development than in year 3.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not hating Dave, I fully want the whole game to work together, but it does become a people in glass houses situation very quickly when expectations are placed on new clubs.

I don't want to make a return to one of Parky's old hobby horses, but foundations aren't academies and realistically don't focus on rugby as the primary thing at all. They're not equivalent. 

The team are based in Rochdale true, but the club is Canadian. Unlike say PSG which seemed to be an RFL ran idea with French RL paying lip service, this is genuinely Canadian off field. I have little worry that TWP will grow that off field presence, but we shouldn't be judging them as particularly harshly than other clubs. Especially now we have Ottawa too, Canada seems as good an avenue as any.

All the things I list are the roots, that are integrated into the UK communities and that are the foundations of the game. 

TWP has done little work on foundations and expecting them to start is not unreasonable. 

Academies are a funny one, there are clearly conflicting views on the value of every club having one versus the money invested, but that is a complex debate that will still be around for years, but Academies are one part of the roots of a club, Wakefield and Salford are not just shell clubs who stage 12 or 13 games of rugby a year, is my point. They do a hell of a lot in their communities to develop and grow RL. It is fair to demand TWP crack on with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

The team are based in Rochdale true, but the club is Canadian. Unlike say PSG which seemed to be an RFL ran idea with French RL paying lip service, this is genuinely Canadian off field. I have little worry that TWP will grow that off field presence, but we shouldn't be judging them as particularly harshly than other clubs. Especially now we have Ottawa too, Canada seems as good an avenue as any.

I disagree with this, it is one of my issues right now. 

Why do you say that TWP are more Canadian than PSG were French? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

I fully understand your point , but again , what are you suggesting they do ? 

You combine the expansion argument with accepting what you consider is a poor broadcasting deal 

They are 2 different issues and are not connected 

We constantly see people on here criticising club owners as useless , and yet they've got themselves into a position to be a club owner , it's just a shame that those on here who seem to have all the answers haven't managed to get to that position 

Of course they are connected.  At the moment SL clubs have no choice but to accept the renegotiated deal with SKY.  This is because some clubs see the SKY money as all they need to survive and they are happy with that situation.

But, what I am suggesting - as I have suggested in my previous two posts - is that there is only one real alternative that SL club owners can take and that is to work out how expansion will work to the long term benefit of the game that gives Elstone an agreed way forward to offer a different model/system to SKY and other media organisations.

BTW I am criticising owners because some appear to be putting self interest before possible long term gain if they decide not to accept expansion - and that can be with clubs throughout the UK as well as further afield.  The message that this decision would send to SKY and other media organisations would be crystal clear.  The SKY negotiators would come back with a reduced deal because there is no added value since the last deal.

Now that a I have answered your comment why don’t you answer mine.  How does deciding not to accept expansion bring more money into the game.

Edit - it is farcical that owners of teams may decide not to accept expansion because of self interest but they are also in a position as custodians of the game who’s remit should be to grow the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

On the funding thing, why should Toronto be held to that more than any of the other SL clubs, theirs no stipulation in the funding that clubs get about player development is there?

I believe c£100k or so is granted if you have an Academy. And Sky Try money is granted for foundations to deliver grassroots stuff. 

And clubs have to have a number of UK players and there are incentives on the cap for homegrown players. 

So there are a number of incentives which drive player development, they maybe need a rethink in how they are positioned to make them fit for purpose in a more international league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

All the things I list are the roots, that are integrated into the UK communities and that are the foundations of the game. 

TWP has done little work on foundations and expecting them to start is not unreasonable. 

Academies are a funny one, there are clearly conflicting views on the value of every club having one versus the money invested, but that is a complex debate that will still be around for years, but Academies are one part of the roots of a club, Wakefield and Salford are not just shell clubs who stage 12 or 13 games of rugby a year, is my point. They do a hell of a lot in their communities to develop and grow RL. It is fair to demand TWP crack on with that. 

It is fair to expect that but I have to be honest Dave living in Wakefield and playing my junior rugby there I genuinely think they've given more money to Sandal RUFC, Fev Rovers and the local (RU playing) Grammar school to train at their facilities over the past decade than they've invested in the foundation. Some foundations are excellent, but they're not all equal. Some clubs get into very dangerous territory for themselves very quickly when demands start being made, be that of Toronto or Leigh or whoever.

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.