The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Robin Evans]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sorry - I may have misunderstood. I thought the comment was viable for the next 12 months so the expectation is that Ottawa will have had a full season by this time next year.

Ask me in twelve months time and I'll pass a mostly uninformed comments on Ottawa then

[gingerjon]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Had a full season of doing what ?

Playing games, existing. That sort of thing.

The kind of thing that healthy, viable rugby clubs do.

(In case you’re confused, your current line is that all clubs below Super League are viable. So, and this will be hard, you have to say you have no concerns at all about any of them because they’re all fine.)

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Standards that change depending on who you are and where you are from ?

I think Hunslet didn’t go up because they failed to meet standards that were known about in advance and would have been applied to all teams looking to go up. I can’t remember Dewsbury’s reasons.

The committee knows best though. Trust to the committee.

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Derwent said:

But this isn’t a matter of promotion or relegation. It is one of readmittance. Toronto’s participation agreement for SL was formally ended. As things stand they are neither a SL club or  a member of any other league. They currently have no right to be in any league. Currently the matter at hand is whether to readmit them to SL or not. If that is rejected then there’ll be a whole other debate among Championship and L1 clubs about admitting them at that level unless the plug is permanently pulled.

It will become a matter of P/R if Toronto are voted out, and indeed becomes a problem for Ottawa further down the ladder. Naturally there's also the question of who, if anyone, comes in next season to replace them.

It gets to a fundamental question as to whether on field should be the prime arbiter of Super League membership.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Playing games, existing. That sort of thing.

The kind of thing that healthy, viable rugby clubs do.

(In case you’re confused, your current line is that all clubs below Super League are viable. So, and this will be hard, you have to say you have no concerns at all about any of them because they’re all fine.)

You seriously think they'll get to play a game ?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Ask me in twelve months time and I'll pass a mostly uninformed comments on Ottawa then

My cousin lives there. I’ll make sure I have enough suitable references to keep us all going.

[gingerjon]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

You seriously think they'll get to play a game ?

It’s fine though. All the clubs are viable.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I think Hunslet didn’t go up because they failed to meet standards that were known about in advance and would have been applied to all teams looking to go up. I can’t remember Dewsbury’s reasons.

The committee knows best though. Trust to the committee.

So how did CAS get away with it ?

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Playing games, existing. That sort of thing.

The kind of thing that healthy, viable rugby clubs do.

(In case you’re confused, your current line is that all clubs below Super League are viable. So, and this will be hard, you have to say you have no concerns at all about any of them because they’re all fine.)

Its me trotting out that line.

Steve added the rider that the next year will challenge us. Course there are concerns. 

However, fundamentally, I believe all are viable

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It will become a matter of P/R if Toronto are voted out, and indeed becomes a problem for Ottawa further down the ladder. Naturally there's also the question of who, if anyone, comes in next season to replace them.

It gets to a fundamental question as to whether on field should be the prime arbiter of Super League membership.

Doesn't everything ?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It’s fine though. All the clubs are viable.

I said most , if not all 

[Robin Evans]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So how did CAS get away with it ?

Cheeky!!

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So how did CAS get away with it ?

Trust to the committee.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

However, fundamentally, I believe all are viable

I disagree. I'm genuinely concerned for most of our clubs right now.

[flyingking]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

To play a slight devil's advocate, there's a bit of a difference running an ice hockey league when one of your expansions is into *Finland* versus running a rugby league league and expanding into Canada.

The equivalent, and I'd be intrigued if there is one, would be as if the KHL's expansion was to Palermo.

There has been talk of a Milan team for the KHL. The current spread of clubs and countries is impressive stretching all the way from Prague to Beijing. Surprisingly, the Chinese club has been successful, from a standing start with zero ice hockey tradition, they have made the play offs. Ambitious expansions can definitely work sometimes. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, flyingking said:

There has been talk of a Milan team for the KHL. The current spread of clubs and countries is impressive stretching all the way from Prague to Beijing. Surprisingly, the Chinese club has been successful, from a standing start with zero ice hockey tradition, they have made the play offs. Ambitious expansions can definitely work sometimes. 

There's a Beijing team in the SEHA League (handball). Pre-covid, anyway. I haven't checked this year.

Of course, we're all ignoring the most impressive expansion of our age: Australia in Eurovision.

[Niels]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think Hunslet didn’t go up because they failed to meet standards that were known about in advance and would have been applied to all teams looking to go up. I can’t remember Dewsbury’s reasons.

The committee knows best though. Trust to the committee.

Yes, it was a controversial document called "Framing the future" that was cited to deny Hunslet and then Dewsbury.

Dewsbury asked if they could play at Sheffield until ground improvements were done. They were denied the opportunity of course. 

Although as a Batley fan both were rivals,  they had very competitive sides then and reasonable fan bases. 

 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Niels said:

Yes, it was a controversial document called "Framing the future" that was cited to deny Hunslet and then Dewsbury.

Dewsbury asked if they could play at Sheffield until ground improvements were done. They were denied the opportunity of course. 

Although as a Batley fan both were rivals,  they had very competitive sides then and reasonable fan bases. 

 

Whereas CAS were discreetly just let back in despite not passing " Framing the future " either , twice 

[TIWIT]

1 hour ago, flyingking said:

There has been talk of a Milan team for the KHL. The current spread of clubs and countries is impressive stretching all the way from Prague to Beijing. Surprisingly, the Chinese club has been successful, from a standing start with zero ice hockey tradition, they have made the play offs. Ambitious expansions can definitely work sometimes. 

China had a couple of teams in the Canadian Women's Hockey League. The league failed, despite the presence of many Olympians.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Niels said:

Yes, it was a controversial document called "Framing the future" that was cited to deny Hunslet and then Dewsbury.

Dewsbury asked if they could play at Sheffield until ground improvements were done. They were denied the opportunity of course. 

Although as a Batley fan both were rivals,  they had very competitive sides then and reasonable fan bases. 

 

You are correct & from memory the capacity of both grounds was too low

BTW for other posters the capacities were both significantly less than the one at Cas

[Oxford]

Still crashing on the rocks of of TWP ate my hamster and were dirty remoaners to a person!

[Oldbear]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I disagree. I'm genuinely concerned for most of our clubs right now.

I agree, and that includes SL clubs too, I just have a funny feeling, no evidence to back it up, but just a feeling, that debating about TWP readmission, or who replaces them if rejected, is just a moot point, and that in fact SL may contract to 10 clubs due to someone not being able to make the starting line in 2021.

[Oldbear]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Whereas CAS were discreetly just let back in despite not passing " Framing the future " either , twice 

Which is why I don’t like off field decisions, unless those decisions are applied fairly and equitably to ALL clubs. There just seems to be too many decisions made without clear and consistent evidence applied.

[Oldbear]

2 hours ago, Niels said:

Dewsbury asked if they could play at Sheffield until ground improvements were done. They were denied the opportunity of course. 

 

But didn’t Wakefield get permission to play some games at Barnsley? Another example of double standards maybe?

[GUBRATS]

35 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You are correct & from memory the capacity of both grounds was too low

BTW for other posters the capacities were both significantly less than the one at Cas

But had sufficient safe seating , unlike CAS 

Which still doesn't