Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Well I'd say being realistic given we have 3 of the top ten richest football clubs in the world within that area 

How is what they are doing at another clubs expense ?

Only the removal of on field  and R is doing that 

As part of a wider package in itself its not ridiculous, but when its just that, its zero growth (indeed backwards in many aspects).

Because these clubs will stop the likes of your club coming up by making it as hard as possible for new teams to succeed to protect their status - they'll willingly sacrifice eachother though as we've seen with Widnes and Bradford. Equally at the top they'll vote to decrease the ability of the biggest clubs to drag the league forwards as they compete against the NRL and Rugby Union. The subsequent declining interest in the sport and lost monies are a result of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As part of a wider package in itself its not ridiculous, but when its just that, its zero growth (indeed backwards in many aspects).

Because these clubs will stop the likes of your club coming up by making it as hard as possible for new teams to succeed to protect their status - they'll willingly sacrifice eachother though as we've seen with Widnes and Bradford. Equally at the top they'll vote to decrease the ability of the biggest clubs to drag the league forwards as they compete against the NRL and Rugby Union. The subsequent declining interest in the sport and lost monies are a result of that.

So if he'd said we should become the biggest sport in the north of England , would be not have been ridiculed ?

How are they making it hard for Leigh ?

Surely his primary job is to protect his clubs status ? , Isn't that Gary's primary job ?

Both Widnes and especially Bradford's problems are nothing to do with Wakey

I assume you mean the salary cap ? , If he hasn't the money , then he is potentially restricting SLs potential to retain its players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So if he'd said we should become the biggest sport in the north of England , would be not have been ridiculed ?

How are they making it hard for Leigh ?

Surely his primary job is to protect his clubs status ? , Isn't that Gary's primary job ?

Both Widnes and especially Bradford's problems are nothing to do with Wakey

I assume you mean the salary cap ? , If he hasn't the money , then he is potentially restricting SLs potential to retain its players

Why the north of England limited focus would be my point. It demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to how the country let alone world works.

Pretending they have stadium plans that never materialise is a start.

His primary job should be making sure his club status is not under threat yes, but his approach to answering that is often lowest common denominator rather than growth. Eg. Come 11th or just above, spend less on training and gym facilities etc.

They got rid and didn't support them when they wanted and took money off them (Bradford incidentally like Toronto) in the process. No looking out for each of the little guys there was there?

And sign new players, which diminishes the competition in almost every metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Remember London Broncos won 10 matches that must without doubt be the highest number ever for a team relegated from SL.

 

Paul

It was a conspiracy apparently and would have been complained about had they stayed up... I despair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why the north of England limited focus would be my point. It demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to how the country let alone world works.

Pretending they have stadium plans that never materialise is a start.

His primary job should be making sure his club status is not under threat yes, but his approach to answering that is often lowest common denominator rather than growth. Eg. Come 11th or just above, spend less on training and gym facilities etc.

They got rid and didn't support them when they wanted and took money off them (Bradford incidentally like Toronto) in the process. No looking out for each of the little guys there was there?

And sign new players, which diminishes the competition in almost every metric.

We do need to be careful with this constant narrative of clubs taking money off clubs. I recall many clubs being supportive of Bradford's efforts, with donations and waiving of ticket share etc. being given to the Bulls during that period. 

Where we started to see funding not given was around new questionable owners. It appears to me that SL clubs are not fans of routing money to club owners with question marks over them. It is hard to argue against that view in both Bradford and Toronto's cases. 

Across sport we see a fair few shady ownership models, and I think the clubs take a cynical view of this. 

But the other interesting point is that this central funding narrative is often used to show backward thinking and being against expansion, but it has been used against heartland clubs too. And it would be naive to think clubs just have a chat and agree to shaft a club for their benefit, as let's be honest, their club could be next. 

Id rather the money was held back in Central pots, but I dont think it is as simple as some make out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We do need to be careful with this constant narrative of clubs taking money off clubs. I recall many clubs being supportive of Bradford's efforts, with donations and waiving of ticket share etc. being given to the Bulls during that period. 

Where we started to see funding not given was around new questionable owners. It appears to me that SL clubs are not fans of routing money to club owners with question marks over them. It is hard to argue against that view in both Bradford and Toronto's cases. 

Across sport we see a fair few shady ownership models, and I think the clubs take a cynical view of this. 

But the other interesting point is that this central funding narrative is often used to show backward thinking and being against expansion, but it has been used against heartland clubs too. And it would be naive to think clubs just have a chat and agree to shaft a club for their benefit, as let's be honest, their club could be next. 

Id rather the money was held back in Central pots, but I dont think it is as simple as some make out. 

I agree that central pots should be the route taken if money is being held back from a club.

I think the sport has a dangerously cannibalistic side to it (and has had it for decades) at the boardroom level which is driven by clubs with totally insecure positions living on the edge. As you say, there is a near constant fear that their club will be next and that speaks to the general financial insecurity of the sport. The solution to some is reductive, cost cutting and narrow focus - that's certainly a solution and might work but is arguably what has been mainly happening for the past 125 years and has left us where we are now.

Now what we see is that, for the sum of a couple of hundred thousand pounds at most, some clubs will be willing to vote for no Toronto and 11 teams next season. That they can be so cheaply bought should ring alarm bells as to the real weakness of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree that central pots should be the route taken if money is being held back from a club.

I think the sport has a dangerously cannibalistic side to it (and has had it for decades) at the boardroom level which is driven by clubs with totally insecure positions living on the edge. As you say, there is a near constant fear that their club will be next and that speaks to the general financial insecurity of the sport. The solution to some is reductive, cost cutting and narrow focus - that's certainly a solution and might work but is arguably what has been mainly happening for the past 125 years and has left us where we are now.

Now what we see is that, for the sum of a couple of hundred thousand pounds at most, some clubs will be willing to vote for no Toronto and 11 teams next season. That they can be so cheaply bought should ring alarm bells as to the real weakness of the game.

But the problem here is that that is your spin about them voting out because of a couple of hundred grand. Maybe, they just genuinely don't think that TWP in SL is a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the problem here is that that is your spin about them voting out because of a couple of hundred grand. Maybe, they just genuinely don't think that TWP in SL is a good idea. 

I think if the SL clubs vote to refuse TWP's application and to run with 11 teams it would suggest that both of those reasons were the cause.

If the vote allows TWP to return but without central funds as before then the other 11 still get a share of the funds meant for club 12 so they would admit TWP and get the extra money. So a Yes to TWP and financial gain

If the vote is to decline the application and to promote a new club 12 then the clubs turn down TWP but don't get the extra money. So they don't believe in TWP but don't gain financially.

If the vote is to decline TWP and run an 11 team league then they each get a share of the money meant for club 12. So they don't believe in TWP and they get a financial gain. They may also remove relegation for 2021 in this scenario too and guarantee their own SL status and the finances that come with it.

If the clubs don't believe TWP is viable but aren't motivated to refuse the application by potential financial gain then they will say no to TWP but vote to have 12 teams in 2021 IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wiganermike said:

I think if the SL clubs vote to refuse TWP's application and to run with 11 teams it would suggest that both of those reasons were the cause.

If the vote allows TWP to return but without central funds as before then the other 11 still get a share of the funds meant for club 12 so they would admit TWP and get the extra money. So a Yes to TWP and financial gain

If the vote is to decline the application and to promote a new club 12 then the clubs turn down TWP but don't get the extra money. So they don't believe in TWP but don't gain financially.

If the vote is to decline TWP and run an 11 team league then they each get a share of the money meant for club 12. So they don't believe in TWP and they get a financial gain. They may also remove relegation for 2021 in this scenario too and guarantee their own SL status and the finances that come with it.

If the clubs don't believe TWP is viable but aren't motivated to refuse the application by potential financial gain then they will say no to TWP but vote to have 12 teams in 2021 IMO.

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

No doubt the press releases following any vote to run with 11 teams in 2021 would carry the narrative that they (SLE) didn't feel it right and proper to select a 12th club when promotion couldn't be won on the pitch but we would all know the extra cash would have been what led to that outcome. Given the financial strain our clubs are under, particularly due to Covid, any attempt to access extra money is understandable but we cannot pretend that not having a 12th club in 2021 (if they decide to do that) would not be something that was done in order to access some extra cash. As I posted earlier though if TWP were club 12 and didn't get central funding then the other 11 clubs would still get their extra bit of cash.

I am in agreement with you in terms of what I would prefer to see happen though I do think that concerns over the business plan/viability of TWP in SL and over the level of commitment from Carlo LiVolsi to sustaining TWP going forward on the part of the other SL clubs will see the application turned down.

You may well be right in that had TWP withdrawn in April/May rather than after committing to the restart then they may have been looked on more favourably. That didn't happen though and they seem to have annoyed the various people that will decide what to do in response to their late withdrawal with the manner in which they did it. That the prospective new owner didn't put much effort or attention into his submission to re-enter won't have helped either. I don't follow RU but I doubt that the South African clubs behaved in as self defeating a manner as TWP did when withdrawing from their competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

What if TWP are told no they leave and along with Ottawa and New York they form a new North American-UK league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wiganermike said:

No doubt the press releases following any vote to run with 11 teams in 2021 would carry the narrative that they (SLE) didn't feel it right and proper to select a 12th club when promotion couldn't be won on the pitch but we would all know the extra cash would have been what led to that outcome. Given the financial strain our clubs are under, particularly due to Covid, any attempt to access extra money is understandable but we cannot pretend that not having a 12th club in 2021 (if they decide to do that) would not be something that was done in order to access some extra cash. As I posted earlier though if TWP were club 12 and didn't get central funding then the other 11 clubs would still get their extra bit of cash.

I am in agreement with you in terms of what I would prefer to see happen though I do think that concerns over the business plan/viability of TWP in SL and over the level of commitment from Carlo LiVolsi to sustaining TWP going forward on the part of the other SL clubs will see the application turned down.

You may well be right in that had TWP withdrawn in April/May rather than after committing to the restart then they may have been looked on more favourably. That didn't happen though and they seem to have annoyed the various people that will decide what to do in response to their late withdrawal with the manner in which they did it. That the prospective new owner didn't put much effort or attention into his submission to re-enter won't have helped either. I don't follow RU but I doubt that the South African clubs behaved in as self defeating a manner as TWP did when withdrawing from their competition.

It would not shock me if the SL goes with a bubble season 11 or 12 teams in one location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

As they should have done for this current season 

For once having so many teams and stadiums in close proximity would be a good thing when it comes to creating a bubble. 

The problem is the length of the season. Players will not commit to 6 months in a bubble away from their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

TWP were protected from relegation? I don't think so. But as you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone clear this up. If Super league go with 11, wouldn't they get less sky money for the reduction in games, therefore having 12 would be financially better?

   Similar to the Nrl and Warrior's situation if they didn't complete the season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic. Quinn Ngawati just signed for RUNY in the MLR. I hope RL fans don't complain when they lose the North American market. That comment is a bit tongue in cheek, because the MLR is still very much in the startup category of ventures, and could easily fail. However things like this will leave an impression with the Toronto fans. The Arrows are already looking to get hold of the Wolfpack members list and continue on with games at Lamport.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SL17 said:

How is that back on topic? Good luck to the lad.

This is the TWP discussion thread, he was a player for them (if on loan), at least until COVID struck. So yes, back on topic, when compared to discussion about SL clubs relative greed for going with 11 teams.

It also relates to the sports market in Toronto, and perhaps a missed opportunity it if TWP are abandoned. SO pretty much on thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SL17 said:

They already have a reduction of £280k each for 2021. Leaving 11 would give them £172k each back. They are simply protecting their own interest.

Full filling fixtures would just narrow. But force SKY to slot them in. As they do now. 

Any day the round ball isn’t on, we’ll see RL.

Force Sky?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TIWIT said:

TWP were protected from relegation? I don't think so. But as you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

No, I may be wrong on the sequencing on when no relegation was announced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

As they should have done for this current season 

Blimey. We agree on something.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wiganermike said:

No doubt the press releases following any vote to run with 11 teams in 2021 would carry the narrative that they (SLE) didn't feel it right and proper to select a 12th club when promotion couldn't be won on the pitch but we would all know the extra cash would have been what led to that outcome. Given the financial strain our clubs are under, particularly due to Covid, any attempt to access extra money is understandable but we cannot pretend that not having a 12th club in 2021 (if they decide to do that) would not be something that was done in order to access some extra cash. As I posted earlier though if TWP were club 12 and didn't get central funding then the other 11 clubs would still get their extra bit of cash.

 

I think we are agreed on all but this point. 

If they decide TWP should be out, there are many reasons that could be quoted, not involving central funding. 

And if they decide to go for 12 teams how do they select that team based on the fact that the Championship clubs aren't playing? There is also a huge element of risk having a 12th team artificially increase its wage bill to join SL at a time when there is so much uncertainty. We are likely to have an affected season next year too, Toulouse shouldn't be admitted in that environment, and I think even for a heartland club it would be a real challenge. There is then the fairness position of who you would even invite. 

I think there are plenty of reasons we could end up with any of the 4 or 5 combinations that aren't just a cash grab. However for people with that bias, it is very easy to just see everything as a cash grab. 

One final point, again the heartland clubs are getting bashed, but these clubs and their owners and fans are digging deep right now and funding RL being played. People talk about the Sky contract, but it is worth around £1.8m to clubs who would maybe have a turnover of 7 to 10 million. I'm not sure why the narrative is being painted that these owners are the skinflint bad guys here after every penny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

And if they decide to go for 12 teams how do they select that team based on the fact that the Championship clubs aren't playing? There is also a huge element of risk having a 12th team artificially increase its wage bill to join SL at a time when there is so much uncertainty. We are likely to have an affected season next year too, Toulouse shouldn't be admitted in that environment, and I think even for a heartland club it would be a real challenge. There is then the fairness position of who you would even invite. 

Toulouse are more likely to have decent crowds back next year than M62 clubs, to be fair. They have solid financial backing, a top notch ground, decent squad with juniors and they already pay travel costs. 

They tick plenty of boxes.

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.