The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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? 

Because they are ran by Canucks (or at least in Argyle's case Canuck based), clearly have a Canadian identity in terms of presentation and matchday. They look more like a Canadian interpretation of an RL club rather than a British RL club trying to crack Canada.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Because they are ran by Canucks (or at least in Argyle's case Canuck based), clearly have a Canadian identity in terms of presentation and matchday. They look more like a Canadian interpretation of an RL club rather than a British RL club trying to crack Canada.

In their first year, I would see the TWP coach and any number of player's around the town Tommy, it is where they lived for most of the year and continue to do so, they were no different to any number if guys I know who's job takes them away from Home for a period.

It will always be same for any "Canadian" club the players will be based in England at home, even the Antipodeans have their homes here they will never be based in Canada, they only go there when it's scheduled to raise the big top and draft the performers in.

[The Rocket]

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

 

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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.

This is exactly the attitude that SL should have. If it works who knows other American billionaires might come knocking.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In their first year, I would see the TWP coach and any number of player's around the town Tommy, it is where they lived for most of the year and continue to do so, they were no different to any number if guys I know who's job takes them away from Home for a period.

It will always be same for any "Canadian" club the players will be based in England at home, even the Antipodeans have their homes here they will never be based in Canada, they only go there when it scheduled to raise the big top and draft the performers in.

That doesn't really seem to matter to either the Canadian fans though Harry, I don't see why it should bother us so much? Unless obviously its just another strawman to knock down?

Also, there's also another clear issue on that regards about salary cap. I doubt it would be possible to relocate 25 men and their families to the 3rd biggest metro area in north america for 1.8 million, let alone pay them any wages.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, The Rocket said:

 

This is exactly the attitude that SL should have. If it works who knows other American billionaires might come knocking.

I know you'll get criticised for an overtly positive mental attitude but its not ridiculous by any means. Northern Hemisphere RL is a relatively cheap investment in the sporting context. Its significantly cheaper to buy into than virtually every other top class televised professional sport. To the north American (and indeed any) investment audience we need to be shouting from the rooftops about the opportunity here. 

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

There will always be weaker and stronger clubs, and you will know more than me about what activity Wakefield engage in with their local community.

But a quick scan at some of the work the core club and the foundation carry out shows some good stuff. They have ladies teams, they have LDRL and PDRL teams and some really quite nice looking campaigns that they are involved in. I also assume that like other clubs they get involved with local schools and clubs etc?

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I know you'll get criticised for an overtly positive mental attitude but its not ridiculous by any means. Northern Hemisphere RL is a relatively cheap investment in the sporting context. Its significantly cheaper to buy into than virtually every other top class televised professional sport. To the north American (and indeed any) investment audience we need to be shouting from the rooftops about the opportunity here. 

Your second and third sentence is something that I have thought for a long time.

Rich blokes in America like their sporting play things. Having a bit of `old world` cred won`t hurt either especially if Toronto and Ottawa can give them a bit of profile.

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Because they are ran by Canucks (or at least in Argyle's case Canuck based), clearly have a Canadian identity in terms of presentation and matchday. They look more like a Canadian interpretation of an RL club rather than a British RL club trying to crack Canada.

PSG had Jacques Fouroux as its President, with a French coach and a solid number of French players, with 17k French fans in Paris on day 1. 

PSG failed due to a lack of planning and funding - but I don't see how a claim can be made that they are less French than TWP are Canadian.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I know you'll get criticised for an overtly positive mental attitude but its not ridiculous by any means. Northern Hemisphere RL is a relatively cheap investment in the sporting context. Its significantly cheaper to buy into than virtually every other top class televised professional sport. To the north American (and indeed any) investment audience we need to be shouting from the rooftops about the opportunity here. 

 

16 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

This is exactly the attitude that SL should have. If it works who knows other American billionaires might come knocking.

I often make this point, but then this seems to be forgotten when we make demands on investors that they have to fund their investment themselves. If I wanted to set up an MLS team I would have to fork out hundreds of millions, probably build a fancy new stadium, and jump through all sorts of hoops. We get ripped for asking investors to cover some costs. 

I genuinely think there is a case for having a franchise fee of say £10m - as you say these numbers are tiny for sports investment. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There will always be weaker and stronger clubs, and you will know more than me about what activity Wakefield engage in with their local community.

But a quick scan at some of the work the core club and the foundation carry out shows some good stuff. They have ladies teams, they have LDRL and PDRL teams and some really quite nice looking campaigns that they are involved in. I also assume that like other clubs they get involved with local schools and clubs etc?

That stuff is all fantastic but seems a bit apples and oranges when you're comparing clubs and areas that have played the game for 125 years with a club that has existed practically alone in 1 country for 4 years. If we're going to use such loose criteria of "being in the community" then are we going to let the wolfpack take credit for the Canadian Women's team qualifying for the World cup?

My brother plays at Eastmoor and previously Stanley rangers with little to no interaction with Wakefield Trinity at all. I had more coaching from pro RL club coaches at Cas Rugby Union than he's ever had at any Wakefield club. That partly explains why most of the kids he plays with support a team other than Wakefield. They're a particularly poor example but are an example of a club trying to now exclude Toronto from the competition or at best will want to impose development clauses!

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

PSG had Jacques Fouroux as its President, with a French coach and a solid number of French players, with 17k French fans in Paris on day 1. 

PSG failed due to a lack of planning and funding - but I don't see how a claim can be made that they are less French than TWP are Canadian.

If I change my point from French to Parisian would you agree?

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That doesn't really seem to matter to either the Canadian fans though Harry, I don't see why it should bother us so much? Unless obviously its just another strawman to knock down?

Also, there's also another clear issue on that regards about salary cap. I doubt it would be possible to relocate 25 men and their families to the 3rd biggest metro area in north america for 1.8 million, let alone pay them any wages.

No not at all, As Dave T eludes to the clubs that get bad press for not having an academy have their player's very actively involved in the local communities in all manner of functions to promote the game whether that be in schools, community clubs etc as he says "to develop and grow the sport", now please tell me how that can be acheived with the people of the club who are actively involved in the playing aspects spending the whole of the 'off season' and 6 months 'in season' 3,500 miles away? 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Your second and third sentence is something that I have thought for a long time.

Rich blokes in America like their sporting play things. Having a bit of `old world` cred won`t hurt either especially if Toronto and Ottawa can give them a bit of profile.

Quite, though TV money and league operations across the pond are vastly different.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

No not at all, As Dave T eludes to the clubs that get bad press for not having an academy have their player's very actively involved in the local communities in all manner of functions to promote the game whether that be in schools, community clubs etc as he says "to develop and grow the sport", now please tell me how that can be acheived with the people of the club who are actively involved in the playing aspects spending the whole of the 'off season' and 6 months 'in season' 3,500 miles away? 

I'm going to call it now Harry, community foundations are nothing to do with developing players or the sport. They're community welfare schemes based on multi sports, dance, even charity work - that's obviously a good thing, but as I've pointed out in a latter post, that doesn't make them automatically very good community welfare schemes and certainly not player development programmes. If all these clubs were so good at reaching into schools we'd have a bigger presence in schools.

[The Rocket]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I genuinely think there is a case for having a franchise fee of say £10m - as you say these numbers are tiny for sports investment. 

Might not be a bad idea, if they are keen enough they will pay it.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

I often make this point, but then this seems to be forgotten when we make demands on investors that they have to fund their investment themselves. If I wanted to set up an MLS team I would have to fork out hundreds of millions, probably build a fancy new stadium, and jump through all sorts of hoops. We get ripped for asking investors to cover some costs. 

I genuinely think there is a case for having a franchise fee of say £10m - as you say these numbers are tiny for sports investment. 

Totally agree. Franchise fees for all regardless of Toronto or North America frankly.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That stuff is all fantastic but seems a bit apples and oranges when you're comparing clubs and areas that have played the game for 125 years with a club that has existed practically alone in 1 country for 4 years. If we're going to use such loose criteria of "being in the community" then are we going to let the wolfpack take credit for the Canadian Women's team qualifying for the World cup?

My brother plays at Eastmoor and previously Stanley rangers with little to no interaction with Wakefield Trinity at all. I had more coaching from pro RL club coaches at Cas Rugby Union than he's ever had at any Wakefield club. That partly explains why most of the kids he plays with support a team other than Wakefield. They're a particularly poor example but are an example of a club trying to now exclude Toronto from the competition or at best will want to impose development clauses!

If they don't do the stuff that I highlighted, happy to take it back. But their website says they do.

But your starting line is exactly the point - if we stop investing in the heartland clubs and routing money to Toronto and Ottawa and New York, and Toulouse etc. then we have to accept that we risk losing the roots in the community that we have already established. It is the same point with removing money from lower divisions. 

I have no issue with deciding that it is the right decision to invest in other areas and that the places you remove investment will simply be mopped up by other activity, that is fine, but we need to decide that with open eyes. And if we are doing that, then it is entirely fair to demand that all the things we are losing are being replaced. 

I don't understand your point about the Canadian women's team in the slightest. Wakefield as a club are actually doing those things that I listed. If TWP run the women's WC team then they get credit - are they doing that?

You keep saying we are asking for different standards, but actually, the opposite is true, people are asking that TWP actually do some of the stuff that even the worst SL clubs are doing.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm going to call it now Harry, community foundations are nothing to do with developing players or the sport. They're community welfare schemes based on multi sports, dance, even charity work - that's obviously a good thing, but as I've pointed out in a latter post, that doesn't make them automatically very good community welfare schemes and certainly not player development programmes. If all these clubs were so good at reaching into schools we'd have a bigger presence in schools.

This conversation has gone wider than player development schemes, it is about community engagement. We are not directly developing Super League players with the LDRL and PDRL teams, but they are absolutely strengthening the engagement with the community and strengthening the roots of RL. 

If we want to position the community work in a totally cynical way they are little more than marketing campaigns. Obviously I am saying that to make a point, but these things improve engagement, open funding avenues, raise profile etc. We can talk about corporate and community responsibility all we want, but there is a clear reason why companies engage in stuff like this.  

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If I change my point from French to Parisian would you agree?

Only if it became Parisian vs Torontonian. Which doesn't really change things

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If they don't do the stuff that I highlighted, happy to take it back. But their website says they do.

But your starting line is exactly the point - if we stop investing in the heartland clubs and routing money to Toronto and Ottawa and New York, and Toulouse etc. then we have to accept that we risk losing the roots in the community that we have already established. It is the same point with removing money from lower divisions. 

I have no issue with deciding that it is the right decision to invest in other areas and that the places you remove investment will simply be mopped up by other activity, that is fine, but we need to decide that with open eyes. And if we are doing that, then it is entirely fair to demand that all the things we are losing are being replaced. 

I don't understand your point about the Canadian women's team in the slightest. Wakefield as a club are actually doing those things that I listed. If TWP run the women's WC team then they get credit - are they doing that?

You keep saying we are asking for different standards, but actually, the opposite is true, people are asking that TWP actually do some of the stuff that even the worst SL clubs are doing.

I'm not being funny Dave but it seems like we're happy with 125 year old clubs to have declining junior and senior amateur games in their areas, occasional school visits and allowing one of the amateur clubs women's teams to wear their kits and deeming its acceptable but then expecting a 4 year old club (hit by a pandemic in year 4) to do the same? I added the point about the womens game as essentially some clubs did just that, there was a bit of furore that St Helens were going to take credit for what was a Thatto Heath enterprise for example. 

Community foundations are charities which yes have a rugby league edge, but thats just amongst other things.

The off field goals should logically be different between Leeds Rhinos, Wakefield Trinity and Toronto. I have no problem with that.

[tuutaisrambo]

Another emergency briefing this morning with another national lockdown on the horizon for next month.

RL's main areas or operation are some of the worst hit areas in England.

And people are making a case for letting a team back into the competition who pulled out because of the virus.

Seems a mad idea even for the most one eyed expansionist.

Maybe if SL demand a sizeable bond be paid to guard against TWP pulling out again but would they pay it?

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not being funny Dave but it seems like we're happy with 125 year old clubs to have declining junior and senior amateur games in their areas, occasional school visits and allowing one of the amateur clubs women's teams to wear their kits and deeming its acceptable but then expecting a 4 year old club (hit by a pandemic in year 4) to do the same? I added the point about the womens game as essentially some clubs did just that, there was a bit of furore that St Helens were going to take credit for what was a Thatto Heath enterprise for example. 

Community foundations are charities which yes have a rugby league edge, but thats just amongst other things.

The off field goals should logically be different between Leeds Rhinos, Wakefield Trinity and Toronto. I have no problem with that.

Happy to agree to disagree. 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This conversation has gone wider than player development schemes, it is about community engagement. We are not directly developing Super League players with the LDRL and PDRL teams, but they are absolutely strengthening the engagement with the community and strengthening the roots of RL. 

If we want to position the community work in a totally cynical way they are little more than marketing campaigns. Obviously I am saying that to make a point, but these things improve engagement, open funding avenues, raise profile etc. We can talk about corporate and community responsibility all we want, but there is a clear reason why companies engage in stuff like this.  

By that measure then, Toronto's community engagement is better than Wakefield's, Salford's, Huddersfield's, Castleford's and Hull KR's because they engage a higher average number of people every matchday. Of course I know thats rubbish but you can see this becomes a pointless willy measuring exercise where figures can be manipulated to suit very quickly. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Happy to agree to disagree. 

Fair enough. I suppose the one major benefit of Toronto is that it has encouraged a genuine thought process about the whole game

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Another emergency briefing this morning with another national lockdown on the horizon for next month.

RL's main areas or operation are some of the worst hit areas in England.

And people are making a case for letting a team back into the competition who pulled out because of the virus.

Seems a mad idea even for the most one eyed expansionist.

Maybe if SL demand a sizeable bond be paid to guard against TWP pulling out again but would they pay it?

They pulled out because their billionaire owner run out of money. If they now have an owner who has the money to run the club during this period, that becomes very different. But there needs to be a robust plan with several scenarios, including being based in the UK to play games for the whole of the 2021 season.