The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Kayakman]

14 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

When is a decision due to be made? 

Friday...that is why the tension is increasing on here and the Anti-Wolfpack attacks are increasing in number and voracity.  The stress is hard for some to endure so, being creatures of habit, they revert back to the old Wolfpack bashing routine to reduce their anxieties.  I worry for them.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Robin Evans said:

No-one

Go with 11

Then 10, then 9 and so on....keep going to the lowest common denominator...a recipe to get to zero or nothing.   

Time to change the tune and CRANK IT UP...12 is higher than 11!

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pjstar.com/sports/20160930/nfl-game-in-london-sell-out-every-time---and-still-lose-money%3ftemplate=ampart

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

[Robin Evans]

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Then 10, then 9 and so on....keep going to the lowest common denominator...a recipe to get to zero or nothing.   

Time to change the tune and CRANK IT UP...12 is higher than 11!

If it has to be twelve give it toulouse then back to p&r.... assuming twp aren't offered a place or find the offer unattractive..... or their re-inclusion is not in the best interests of the game.

All that is irrelevant if twp and sl can find accordance and/or it is in the best interests of the game to have them in.

[RobertAM]

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

[tuutaisrambo]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

BBC's coverage of NFL always cuts back to the BBC studio whenever the feed they get from the US goes to an Ad break.

[Tommygilf]

51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

can't believe people do not realise that as far as LiVolsi is concerned it is SL or he walks, but what people do realise is that LiVolsi is playing a game with people's livelihood being all the player's and creditors that are owed money, quite simply he is passing the blame to the RL/SL of them not getting payed if TWP are rejected.

Tbf H you'd know more than I would about unscrupulous owners who'd pulled out midseason and used threats of non paying debts to get things through.

But anyway, LiVolsi isn't the owner of the club yet, effectively its in RFL limbo-administration. He has suggested he wants to lead an ownership group takeover, pay all debts to creditors save the largest of those, Argyle, who has written off his investment, submitted proposals for that, on the condition the club keeps its place in Super League for 2021. If he doesn't get that he's got no problem walking away, as he was never actually the owner. That's the chip he holds in trade for the 12th super league spot.

If he turned around and paid players now, before his ownership had even been confirmed, let alone Toronto's league place, he'd be making his position immeasurably weaker for no reason. A bit like if the UK gave the EU a load of money "in good faith" before even agreeing that a deal will even be made! It would be stupid in both cases I'm sure you'll agree.

[tuutaisrambo]

6 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

If you get the free version of NFL game pass you can watch edited down highlights of every game for free.

There's different options including highlights of every game of the weekend condensed into one hour..........or a full game condensed into 40 minutes without any stoppages.

If also doesn't display any scores so you can just watch everything delayed without knowing the scores which is decent considering a lot of the games are overnight here in the UK.

I watch pretty much all the NFL and hardly ever watch it live.

[Derwent]

19 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

As I originally said, they were prepared to stand the losses to secure better TV rights in the long term. But RL can’t afford to stand such losses. I’m sure there’s lots of things the RFL and SL would like to do in a perfect world but unfortunately in the real world they need to be paid for. I read lots on here from people like you who tell us what the game should be doing. I’ve yet to read anyone with a solution of where the money comes from to do it.

[TheReaper]

12 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. 

This is exactly why I don't think RL is such an "obvious" or "natural" attraction to American viewers as some make it out to be. For those who are used to AF, RU is fast and flowing. The true American football "nerds" who are very into the coaches strategies, details of line-play (it isn't just fat boys smashing into each other), blocking schemes etc. could find a lot to like about the technical details of the scrum and breakdown. I find there there are a lot more similarities there, than a superficial 6 tackles=4 downs. "10 man rugby" is very similar to your old "3 yards and cloud of dust" football.

[tuutaisrambo]

No point comparing NFL with Rugby league.    They are in different stratospheres.

The 49ers investment arm bought £10m in Leeds United shares in 2018 and that was a minor deal for one team.

[The Rocket]

16 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

I was explaining to my son the other day about the American Restaurant  Chain ` Hooters` or should that be ` hOOters` he was stunned, funny it only took off in Queensland.

[tuutaisrambo]

4 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

This is exactly why I don't think RL is such an "obvious" or "natural" attraction to American viewers as some make it out to be. For those who are used to AF, RU is fast and flowing. The true American football "nerds" who are very into the coaches strategies, details of line-play (it isn't just fat boys smashing into each other), blocking schemes etc. could find a lot to like about the technical details of the scrum and breakdown. I find there there are a lot more similarities there, than a superficial 6 tackles=4 downs. "10 man rugby" is very similar to your old "3 yards and cloud of dust" football.

NFL and union have similarities in that you tend to have different body types for different roles in the team.  This translates well into schools as there's a job/position for the different sized kids to play in PE.

RL is far less specialist...... you just need to be super fit which doesn't translate too well for people that aren't

[TIWIT]

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf H you'd know more than I would about unscrupulous owners who'd pulled out midseason and used threats of non paying debts to get things through.

But anyway, LiVolsi isn't the owner of the club yet, effectively its in RFL limbo-administration. He has suggested he wants to lead an ownership group takeover, pay all debts to creditors save the largest of those, Argyle, who has written off his investment, submitted proposals for that, on the condition the club keeps its place in Super League for 2021. If he doesn't get that he's got no problem walking away, as he was never actually the owner. That's the chip he holds in trade for the 12th super league spot.

If he turned around and paid players now, before his ownership had even been confirmed, let alone Toronto's league place, he'd be making his position immeasurably weaker for no reason. A bit like if the UK gave the EU a load of money "in good faith" before even agreeing that a deal will even be made! It would be stupid in both cases I'm sure you'll agree.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many here don't get that. You have to actually buy the house before you spend the money to fix it up.

As for Harry's idea that SL reject TWP and cover its debts collectively, if SL were going to do that they'd have done it already and made repayment a condition of anybody seeking to then buy the club.

[The Rocket]

37 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

How likely is that the NRL would invest in Super League instead of, say, property (stadia) in Sydney.

Yes ,they are dead keen on income generating assets but I think they will leave the stadiums to the State Gov`t, I think they missed the boat on that one. The comparisons are always made with the afl who own a stadium near the heart of the city which they can rent out for concerts, cricket etc.  Those stadiums in N.S.W are already owned by the State Gov`t.  15 000-20 000 seat stadiums in the suburbs of Sydney might find it hard to find other tenants than League. So not much return. V`landy`s is arguing that since the State G. has backed down on redeveloping the 80 000 Olympic Stadium($810m) they owe it to the League to build two or three  15-20 000 seaters instead or the GF goes to Brisbane.

I have heard it said over here that here is a belief in RL HQ that SL is undervalued. I figure they see it as a complete Rugby League package complementing each other. Proper Club Championships, International Schedules. Something big to offer a broadcaster.

 

 

 

[TIWIT]

59 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

Most tellingly over here is that those games are streamed on Amazon. It's the way of the future.

[Man of Kent]

12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I have heard it said over here that here is a belief in RL HQ that SL is undervalued. I figure they see it as a complete Rugby League package complementing each other. Proper Club Championships, International Schedules. Something big to offer a broadcaster.

It would certainly fill a hole in the Fox League schedules in the Aussie summer. Would mean a shift back to winter rugby here though. 

[CanadianRugger]

Letter from John Tory, Mayor of Toronto:

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

If it has to be twelve give it toulouse then back to p&r.... assuming twp aren't offered a place or find the offer unattractive..... or their re-inclusion is not in the best interests of the game.

All that is irrelevant if twp and sl can find accordance and/or it is in the best interests of the game to have them in.

Minus selecting the candidate to enter SL on the field of play, I would sooner they turned cards over or any other game of chance other than just favouring one team. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, RobertAM said:

Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

Have you got any video's or even still pictures?

[gazza77]

I'd like to see Toronto stay. Let's say they are signed up again for 2021 however, but we're still in the same place re travel restrictions, etc. What then? 

[Robin Evans]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Minus selecting the candidate to enter SL on the field of play, I would sooner they turned cards over or any other game of chance other than just favouring one team. 

Really doesn't need to be fev or leigh getting battered every week cos we're not properly prepared.

Toulouse best other option.

But as I said, I'd prefer no team filling the slot

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf H you'd know more than I would about unscrupulous owners who'd pulled out midseason and used threats of non paying debts to get things through.

But anyway, LiVolsi isn't the owner of the club yet, effectively its in RFL limbo-administration. He has suggested he wants to lead an ownership group takeover, pay all debts to creditors save the largest of those, Argyle, who has written off his investment, submitted proposals for that, on the condition the club keeps its place in Super League for 2021. If he doesn't get that he's got no problem walking away, as he was never actually the owner. That's the chip he holds in trade for the 12th super league spot.

If he turned around and paid players now, before his ownership had even been confirmed, let alone Toronto's league place, he'd be making his position immeasurably weaker for no reason. A bit like if the UK gave the EU a load of money "in good faith" before even agreeing that a deal will even be made! It would be stupid in both cases I'm sure you'll agree.

Tommy yes I know all that, 

But that does not hide the fact that he is saying to SL, choose Toronto to play in SL or the player's get nothing, so it comes down to a moral issue for SL, choose Toronto and the player's get paid, don't choose Toronto and they get nothing.

As I said in another post, pay the players something out of the SL funding, keep with 11 teams next season and it won't cost as much to the SL clubs as re-admitting Toronto and it won't have the season on season costs.

I asked what will Toronto be doing to recompense the SL clubs? the answer is what can they do apart from getting a TV deal to put into the pot, and when will that be, Mr Perez is oft quoted on these pages when it suits, but Mr Perez also said it would be nessacary to have 4 or 5 teams from Canada playing in SL to entice a TV deal, that ain't going to happen soon if ever is it?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Tommy yes I know all that, 

But that does not hide the fact that he is saying to SL, choose Toronto to play in SL or the player's get nothing, so it comes down to a moral issue for SL, choose Toronto and the player's get paid, don't choose Toronto and they get nothing.

As I said in another post, pay the players something out of the SL funding, keep with 11 teams next season and it won't cost as much to the SL clubs as re-admitting Toronto and it won't have the season on season costs.

I asked what will Toronto be doing to recompense the SL clubs? the answer is what can they do apart from getting a TV deal to put into the pot, and when will that be, Mr Perez is oft quoted on these pages when it suits, but Mr Perez also said it would be nessacary to have 4 or 5 teams from Canada playing in SL to entice a TV deal, that ain't going to happen soon if ever is it?

If its a moral choice its somewhat irrelevant, its the choice facing them. No rational person would buy a business with lots of debts that would then be effectively barred from its marketplace. That's reality.

The Super League funding will either go to Toronto or the other clubs. There may be some hardship style fund but realistically no Super league club is going to sanction half a squad of players been paid but not playing. If that's your plan you may as well have them in Toronto kits adding to the fixtures available to be televised.

Within 3 years of Toronto's existence we've got Ottawa, its not unfeasible for others to appear in a similar vein. If we're having 2 Canadian clubs it makes us at least as committed to Canada as we are to France currently. You and I both know how the most money can be made from TV deals in both those places, but I'm the only one of us two willing to compromise to get that.

[Harry Stottle]

54 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Letter from John Tory, Mayor of Toronto:

Not being facetious, but I wouldn't expect him to say anything else.