The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Michael1812 said:

If Google doesn’t know, I am not going to be any more knowledgable.

if you have time, compare the birthplaces on the roster of the American u20 hockey teams from the past few years with 20 years ago. You’ll see that players are starting to be developed in the southern and western states of America where it use to be only the mid west and north east. 

Sorry, to clarify, Google told me they played in the IHL for that period, it's just pretty limited detail. 

[Scotchy1]

5 minutes ago, Michael1812 said:

If Google doesn’t know, I am not going to be any more knowledgable.

if you have time, compare the birthplaces on the roster of the American u20 hockey teams from the past few years with 20 years ago. You’ll see that players are starting to be developed in the southern and western states of America where it use to be only the mid west and north east. 

I think we are going to far down the rabbit hole of trying to find the perfect comparison.

I think what is clear is that there are many examples, especially in US sport of where a 'top level' will parachute in a new club in to areas where the sport isn't popular. 

In fact there is far fewer examples of 'the British way' where expansion at the top level is determined by performance at a lower level. 

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

As a financial sum the cost of free papa johns pizza after every game for every team is a surprisingly large amount.

The value of the media coverage even the adverse bits incalculable!

Not being completly invisible during a lockdown amazing!

If we weren't so excellent at the negative we'd be brilliant!

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

As I say, there are no true Scotsmen.

Pheonix didn't have a team since the 60s  they had a team in the 60s for a few years.

Now you can argue that this made them none-virgin territory for hockey. But this would make a bit of a meaningless title.

But even with that definition. Pheonix wers still virgi  territory when the roadrunners were created. 

The claim was that Phoenix was virgin territory when the Coyotes were created. Around 30 years after the Roadrunners were formed. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I think we are going to far down the rabbit hole of trying to find the perfect comparison.

I think what is clear is that there are many examples, especially in US sport of where a 'top level' will parachute in a new club in to areas where the sport isn't popular. 

In fact there is far fewer examples of 'the British way' where expansion at the top level is determined by performance at a lower level. 

If we admit Toulouse into SL (using whatever mechanism), and they go from a minor sports club to one bigger than Catalans and become a prominent SL team, would that be successful expansion? 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The claim was that Phoenix was virgin territory when the Coyotes were created. Around 30 years after the Roadrunners were formed. 

What was originally claimed was that if you weren't expanding in to virgin territory you weren't really expanding.

Either the coyotes expanded in to virgin territory or the roadrunners did and the coyotes grew out of that.

But at some stage pheonix  was virgin territory by any sensible measure and now it isn't because it was expanded in to

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

What was originally claimed was that if you weren't expanding in to virgin territory you weren't really expanding.

Either the coyotes expanded in to virgin territory or the roadrunners did and the coyotes grew out of that.

But at some stage pheonix  was virgin territory by any sensible measure and now it isn't because it was expanded in to

You've got yourself a touch confused so you can argue. 

I am trying to disprove the point that expansion is only by setting up clubs in virgin territory, which is what Oxford and some others believe.

Edit. In fact you make a post supporting the view. 

[Scotchy1]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we admit Toulouse into SL (using whatever mechanism), and they go from a minor sports club to one bigger than Catalans and become a prominent SL team, would that be successful expansion? 

As I say it's a term that's lost all meaning.

Will it take it to a place that hasn't played it before? Virgin territory? No. 

Will it be a new sport to toulouse? No.

Will it expand the sport at pro level?yes. 

Will it grow the game ? Imo yes, is that expansion? I don't think it really matters. 

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

This is the problem the game faces. 

The game isnt all about the big boys and expansion. However it is made all about the big boys and expansion by the very people who argue it shouldnt be. 

For some on this board, the only reason for a club like Fev or Leigh to exist is to one day have that season in the sun and face the big boys. Games between Fev and Leigh are, in and of themselves, valueless. It is only in the context of one of them maybe facing Leeds and Saints the next year that these games matter at all. If you are a club like Dewsbury or Batley. Simply a semi-pro club existing as the focal point of small heartland town, deeply ingrained in its place and stable at a level where you can exist as a place of local people to watch decent rugby, local players to play at a decent level, then somehow you are less ambitious than some club who stretch themselves to get to SL and live off the coat-tails of the big boys. There is, apparently, no point, no reason for those clubs existing because promotion is the only issue it is the only reason any clubs exist. The long deep history of the heavy Woollen derby is completely disposable when there is the offer of a year in SL. 

And this is then transferred to expansion. Where a club like Toronto or anyone else is expected to come up through the lower leagues, not for any benefit to the lower leagues or SL or the expansion club themselves but simply a hurdle put in their way because that is how it is done. That expansion club are then pilloried for not investing in those off the field activities by the same people who demand they play by rules which incentivize them not doing so. Because expansion stops these clubs 'having a go'. 

The fact is that there are many good and valid reasons why a club should exist. There are many good and valid contributions that clubs of all levels make. Those should be prioritized because they are so much bigger and more important than a minority of clubs 'having a go' 

 

A nice way of saying there should be one rule for some and a different rule for others, or put another way a complete load of waffle.

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You've got yourself a touch confused so you can argue. 

I am trying to disprove the point that expansion is only by setting up clubs in virgin territory, which is what Oxford and some others believe.

Edit. In fact you make a post supporting the view. 

I'm not confused, it was my post that started it.

And rather than refute it you have seemingly proved it.

There are numerous examples of 'expansion in to virgin territory'. But the debate becomes a little pointless because expansion has lost all meaning and now even what is virgin territory is up for debate. There are no true Scotsmen here.

I think this debate has lost the important point. The roadrunners weren't a precursor to the coyotes. Whether the roadrunners existed or not  were successful or not, whether they even played hockey or not wasn't a determining factor in whether or not the coyotes were put in. 

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

A nice way of saying there should be one rule for some and a different rule for others, or put another way a complete load of waffle.

There are already some rules for some and some rules for others. You are in favour of those because it benefits your club.

Also as an example over the last let's say 7 seasons. 2014 to this season. The game. Through SLs funding of the lower tiers through SL solidarity payments. Has put around £3m in to leigh centurions. What benefit has the game as a whole received from that that we couldn't get through funding the lower tiers as community clubs?

[LeytherRob]

10 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

There are already some rules for some and some rules for others. You are in favour of those because it benefits your club.

Also as an example over the last let's say 7 seasons. 2014 to this season. The game. Through SLs funding of the lower tiers through SL solidarity payments. Has put around £3m in to leigh centurions. What benefit has the game as a whole received from that that we couldn't get through funding the lower tiers as community clubs?

One benefit is that the quality of the championship has gone through the roof compared to 10/15 years ago. It's become a brilliant proving ground for players and the movement of players between the championship and SL has never been more fluid. SL has benefited massively from this, from DR for clubs like Leeds, to signing players like Matty Ashton. There is no way 10 years ago you could have players like Brandon Moore stepping up and doing the job he did for Huddersfield if he wasn't already used to playing against good teams in the championship.

Granted,  the money skewed a bit too much in favour of the top clubs which had been designed to sustain the middle 8s, but it has since been flattened to a more reasonable spread. Even the clubs in championship that haven't necessarily benefited from the higher levels of funding have improved drastically from playing in a tougher competition. There are no easy games in the championship anymore and there are  now 6 or 7 genuine contenders, a far cry from the early 2000s with 1 or 2 good clubs and the rest just making up numbers.

There are arguments to what levels of funding should be set aside to achieve these benefits, but there should be no question as to the importance of maintaining a strong 2nd tier, not only from a player development perspective, but to provide a place where clubs like York, Toulouse, maybe Newcastle in future can grow without being thrown straight into the deep end of SL like catalans were. It also provides a safe landing for those dropping out of SL to accommodate these expansion clubs.

[Scotchy1]

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

One benefit is that the quality of the championship has gone through the roof compared to 10/15 years ago. It's become a brilliant proving ground for players and the movement of players between the championship and SL has never been more fluid. SL has benefited massively from this, from DR for clubs like Leeds, to signing players like Matty Ashton. There is no way 10 years ago you could have players like Brandon Moore stepping up and doing the job he did for Huddersfield if he wasn't already used to playing against good teams in the championship.

Granted,  the money skewed a bit too much in favour of the top clubs which had been designed to sustain the middle 8s, but it has since been flattened to a more reasonable spread. Even the clubs in championship that haven't necessarily benefited from the higher levels of funding have improved drastically from playing in a tougher competition. There are no easy games in the championship anymore and there are  now 6 or 7 genuine contenders, a far cry from the early 2000s with 1 or 2 good clubs and the rest just making up numbers.

There are arguments to what levels of funding should be set aside to achieve these benefits, but there should be no question as to the importance of maintaining a strong 2nd tier, not only from a player development perspective, but to provide a place where clubs like York, Toulouse, maybe Newcastle in future can grow without being thrown straight into the deep end of SL like catalans were. It also provides a safe landing for those dropping out of SL to accommodate these expansion clubs.

I agree with those things but those are things I'm talking about as 'funding the lower tiers as community clubs'.

The fact is that funding the lower leagues as a competition to SL has meant that huge amounts of money is pumped in to the lower leagues and it is even more reliant on SL funding and less sustainable as a competition. 

For £3m for Leigh, and a bit less for the lower clubs we would yet a lot more RoI in those areas if we funded lower league clubs to focus on those areas instead of chasing that season in the sun. 

[LeytherRob]

6 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I agree with those things but those are things I'm talking about as 'funding the lower tiers as community clubs'.

The fact is that funding the lower leagues as a competition to SL has meant that huge amounts of money is pumped in to the lower leagues and it is even more reliant on SL funding and less sustainable as a competition. 

For £3m for Leigh, and a bit less for the lower clubs we would yet a lot more RoI in those areas if we funded lower league clubs to focus on those areas instead of chasing that season in the sun. 

I understand your point, but in championship has always been an division that has relied on the clubs at the top dragging everyone up. Without the ambition at the top, the division drops drastically. We saw this during the licensing days. It's also not just Leigh benefitting from this, in fact 2015 and the parachute payment from SL relegation are the only times Leigh have had the max funding, and 2019 we had basically the same as clubs like Swinton, Batley etc. Clubs like Toulouse have been able to properly build and are now at a point where they look destined for SL in 2021. I firmly believe that without the structure that's been in place, teams like York would have no chance to build momentum like they are doing now.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

I understand your point, but in championship has always been an division that has relied on the clubs at the top dragging everyone up. Without the ambition at the top, the division drops drastically. We saw this during the licensing days. It's also not just Leigh benefitting from this, in fact 2015 and the parachute payment from SL relegation are the only times Leigh have had the max funding, and 2019 we had basically the same as clubs like Swinton, Batley etc. Clubs like Toulouse have been able to properly build and are now at a point where they look destined for SL in 2021. I firmly believe that without the structure that's been in place, teams like York would have no chance to build momentum like they are doing now.

It's amazing how fans of certain championship clubs have this perspective  when it comes to their club getting considerably more funding than others but completely reverse that argument when they are no longer the big fish in Super League. 

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Michael1812 said:

I also think people get too caught up in differentiating between the two codes of rugby in new areas. 99.9% of people in North America don’t realise there are two versions of rugby, nor do they care. I’d say hockey in Arizona was as well know as rugby in Toronto.

The same applies in places like London too, though the percentage is lower than 99.9%.  The experience of a few posters who live in the UK but outside the heartlands trying to talk the game up with their work colleagues, neighbours etc. has been that most of them didn't know there are two versions of rugby either.

[Scotchy1]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

I understand your point, but in championship has always been an division that has relied on the clubs at the top dragging everyone up. Without the ambition at the top, the division drops drastically. We saw this during the licensing days. It's also not just Leigh benefitting from this, in fact 2015 and the parachute payment from SL relegation are the only times Leigh have had the max funding, and 2019 we had basically the same as clubs like Swinton, Batley etc. Clubs like Toulouse have been able to properly build and are now at a point where they look destined for SL in 2021. I firmly believe that without the structure that's been in place, teams like York would have no chance to build momentum like they are doing now.

The question is would Toulouse and York be able to properly build better, in a league which was made to nurture clubs instead of what we currently have? 

The fact is a lot of spending is driven towards players and away from more sustainable activities so that in the championship can be competitive with a few clubs who are spending big in the hope of promotion. 

Its even worse in L1 where there is a massive disparity between the top and bottom in terms of resource and fledgling clubs are unable to focus on just creating a good day out and getting kids playing and watching by the need to employ squads capable of competing with heartland clubs picking up SL juniors who didnt make the grade. 

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's amazing how fans of certain championship clubs have this perspective  when it comes to their club getting considerably more funding than others but completely reverse that argument when they are no longer the big fish in Super League. 

You do realised you've skipped over my post that not only pointed out that the funding discrepancy in the championship has recently been levelled to a much less extreme degree, but welcomed it? 

[LeytherRob]

41 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

The question is would Toulouse and York be able to properly build better, in a league which was made to nurture clubs instead of what we currently have? 

The fact is a lot of spending is driven towards players and away from more sustainable activities so that in the championship can be competitive with a few clubs who are spending big in the hope of promotion. 

Its even worse in L1 where there is a massive disparity between the top and bottom in terms of resource and fledgling clubs are unable to focus on just creating a good day out and getting kids playing and watching by the need to employ squads capable of competing with heartland clubs picking up SL juniors who didnt make the grade. 

1) What would this league look like? As I've already mentioned in the previous posts, the past 5 years has nurtured more decent clubs below SL than at any time since the game went full time.

2) Championship needs to serve more of a purpose to the wider game than just being a competitive league. You could every penny of funding tomorrow and the competitiveness wouldn't change drastically. What would change very quickly is the level of the whole competition would drop very quickly to previous levels and it will be a much worse environment if you want to be developing SL players and future SL clubs.

3)League 1 currently has flat funding at a very low level, so I'm not sure on the relevance, if anything league 1 looks not too dissimilar to the championship circa 2000-2008, 2 or 3 established clubs with a reasonable fan base that can outspent and out produce the rest, with some not much different to an amateur club.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

You do realised you've skipped over my post that not only pointed out that the funding discrepancy in the championship has recently been levelled to a much less extreme degree, but welcomed it? 

If 4 times as much from top to bottom is levelled then I wouldn't like to see unequal.

[LeytherRob]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

If 4 times as much from top to bottom is levelled then I wouldn't like to see unequal.

It wasn't even 4 times difference before it was levelled off, but that's beside the point. You made bold claims about the attitude of championship fans because you hadn't properly read my post. 

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

1) What would this league look like? As I've already mentioned in the previous posts, the past 5 years has nurtured more decent clubs below SL than at any time since the game went full time.

2) Championship needs to serve more of a purpose to the wider game than just being a competitive league. You could every penny of funding tomorrow and the competitiveness wouldn't change drastically. What would change very quickly is the level of the whole competition would drop very quickly to previous levels and it will be a much worse environment if you want to be developing SL players and future SL clubs.

3)League 1 currently has flat funding at a very low level, so I'm not sure on the relevance, if anything league 1 looks not too dissimilar to the championship circa 2000-2008, 2 or 3 established clubs with a reasonable fan base that can outspent and out produce the rest, with some not much different to an amateur club.

1, i think thats a very subjective judgment. Since 2014 we have seen Bradford and Widnes go pop, York really struggled a few years back, the Leigh and Fev debacle. Swinton are in Sale, Oldham are in Stalybridge, Whitehaven were in crisis couple of years ago. The boom and bust of the championship has been in overdrive since the return of P+R. 

The league would look like it does now, bigger in my opinion. But the focus wouldnt be on Leigh employing players like Jarrod Sammut or Junior Sau or Mark Ioane or Ben Flower to get them to SL. 

2. The level of the competition as of right now, isnt a sustainable level. It needs millions from SL and boom and bust from the top clubs in it to sustain that level. And that is to the disadvantage of clubs running themselves sustainably as they can't compete with the clubs spending thousands on overseas players and SL squad players. That doesnt create an environment conducive to developing SL clubs. 

3. My point regarding L1 is that because it is a league which only exists to be promoted out of, heartland clubs can spend relatively huge sums on SL cast offs to get out of that league. developing clubs can't. That creates a massive disparity in quality and league is a little pointless at times. 

An example here is West Wales raiders. They are doing a great job as part of the welsh pathway. They should exist to get kids playing and get the best kids playing professionally. But doing that see's them miles away from, lets say Hunslet, who can pick up part-time players who dont make it at leeds for peanuts. But doing that sees them smashed off the park. 

[iffleyox]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The same applies in places like London too, though the percentage is lower than 99.9%.  The experience of a few posters who live in the UK but outside the heartlands trying to talk the game up with their work colleagues, neighbours etc. has been that most of them didn't know there are two versions of rugby either.

Yes and no - as probably one of the people you're talking about they don't really have much sense that there are two rugbies, BUT when they see RL I find they are fixated to the point of blind obstinacy on questioning where the scrums and line-outs are. They (most of them) couldn't tell you what a line out is called, but they know it's not happening. 

It is true to say that the lack of differentiation in the popular mind of many people in England ought to be an opportunity, but at the same time it's not like the door is wide open to walk through. The 6 Nations sets the popular view for most of the nation on what 'rugby' vaguely looks like.

The one thing I do find astonishing and a bit depressing is the number of people in their thirties (my sort of age group) who will do you an Eddie Waring impression if you mention rugby league, when they can't possibly actually really remember him and definitely wouldn't know his name....

[LeytherRob]

13 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

1, i think thats a very subjective judgment. Since 2014 we have seen Bradford and Widnes go pop, York really struggled a few years back, the Leigh and Fev debacle. Swinton are in Sale, Oldham are in Stalybridge, Whitehaven were in crisis couple of years ago. The boom and bust of the championship has been in overdrive since the return of P+R. 

The league would look like it does now, bigger in my opinion. But the focus wouldnt be on Leigh employing players like Jarrod Sammut or Junior Sau or Mark Ioane or Ben Flower to get them to SL. 

I'm not going to go over the Bradford mess again, because it's been done to death on this forum but to use many years of financial mismanagement and dubious decision making by the RFL as a stick to beat P&R is disingenuous at best. Swinton and Oldham have been out their grounds for nearly 30 years now, so i'm not sure how by stripping funding to the championship and removing P&R you hope to magic suitable stadiums in those respective towns.

Leigh had their issues when DB decided he was going to walk, but from lumping Leigh and Fev together I assume you are referring to having to use emergency loans, despite offloading players Leigh actually went into the 8's that year with a squad larger than the one Toronto assembled this year. As tends to happen in sport though(much like this year with the injuries/emergency loans during Covid, when it rains, it pours and they picked up around 12/13 injuries including some pretty bad ones in the space of around 5 weeks. A prime example is Liam Hood, who was due to leave the club with the rest in July but the deal was called off by Leigh so we could finish competitively, only for him to suffer a season ending injury a week later. 

Fev suffered much the same fate but to a lesser degree. York have been a basket case for decades and their resurgence has coincided almost perfectly with the new system which has given them something to aim at and a chance to build more sustainably - bringing in players like Atkins and Cuthbertson who will drive standards at the club for the other players. Whitehaven haven't even been close to thinking about SL since the mid 2000's, unless you are also advocating scrapping P&R between the C and L1?

You keep making this about Leigh, but it isn't. I've already pointed out that Leigh have actually benefitted less than some of the other teams in recent years to this new funding such as Toulouse, York and even London. 

Also - "The league would look like it does now, bigger in my opinion" tells me nothing about what your preferred solution would be, because everything you're suggesting with regards to removing all the funding would result in the league looking nothing like it does right now. I'm not trying to ask a loaded question, I'm genuinely curious to what your solution will be.

 

13 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

2. The level of the competition as of right now, isnt a sustainable level. It needs millions from SL and boom and bust from the top clubs in it to sustain that level. And that is to the disadvantage of clubs running themselves sustainably as they can't compete with the clubs spending thousands on overseas players and SL squad players. That doesnt create an environment conducive to developing SL clubs.  

I've already addressed this in a previous post and I'm not going to get into a circular argument on it. Yes it costs money, yes it is an investment, yes there are some benefits to that investment which you did say you agreed with in response to my previous post. There is a question of how much should that investment be worth, but the less money that goes in, the less benefits for SL clubs using Championship as a place to groom the stars of the future against seasoned pros in a tough league, not to mention picking up those late bloomers like Matty Ashton who prove themselves against good teams.

 

40 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

3. My point regarding L1 is that because it is a league which only exists to be promoted out of, heartland clubs can spend relatively huge sums on SL cast offs to get out of that league. developing clubs can't. That creates a massive disparity in quality and league is a little pointless at times. 

An example here is West Wales raiders. They are doing a great job as part of the welsh pathway. They should exist to get kids playing and get the best kids playing professionally. But doing that see's them miles away from, lets say Hunslet, who can pick up part-time players who dont make it at leeds for peanuts. But doing that sees them smashed off the park. 

That will always be the case though, regardless of funding. The teams in league 1 will still be desperate for promotion so they can play teams with bigger fanbases in more meaningful games, what possible system do you have that would make Hunslet prefer to be playing West Wales rather than Bradford? 

Finally, West Wales are doing a great job? Seriously? 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

It wasn't even 4 times difference before it was levelled off, but that's beside the point. You made bold claims about the attitude of championship fans because you hadn't properly read my post. 

Yes it was. I'd read your post and responded as such but you just don't like the response. I made claims about the double standards of some Championship fans that have been proven time and again on here on numerous threads. You disagree and that's fine.