The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

maybe @ckn or @John Drake can somehow merge all the posts on all the threads about this 1 part of the conversation into one thread leaving all the other threads open to actually talk about the topic that started it... but i think they would need the full £16m govt loan to afford the time to do it there are that many!

It's a shame we have to do this, but trying to stop any Toronto Wolfpack thread drifting down the same path of those who want the club to exist and succeed and those who resent its existence and want it to fail arguing with each other is like trying to stop the tide coming in: pointless.

So, we have one, huge, merged Toronto thread, for those who want to discuss these pros and cons to the end of time, and those who don't can ignore the subject completely - especially those who claim they are 'bored' by it who could ease their boredom by starting a thread of their own to discuss something that DOES interest them instead of banging on in here!

As a point of interest, for those who support the club, and want to discuss different topics about it in relative peace, we host a stand alone Toronto Wolfpack forum on here. If you're not a Wolfpack supporter, though, please give it a wide berth, it's not for you and will only raise your blood pressure to look at it. 

Before anyone screams favouritism at us, we also host stand alone forums for every Super League, Championship and League 1 club on here too, some of them busier than others.

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

Hey Harry do you know why many of the emojis of the various poster have disappeared on the forum and been replaced with the generic letters?

Explanation here:

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/353206-for-info-new-image-upload-limits-on-trl/

 

[TheReaper]

43 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Before anyone screams favouritism at us, we also host stand alone forums for every Super League, Championship and League 1 club on here too, some of them busier than others.

Well.... Almost every other team.... 

[TheReaper]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I answered your statement when you said "It's nobody's business to tell another business how to find their employees" 

You know very well we were discussing player development, of which my direct answer was "When in Rome........... and leeching" relating to the fact that TWP have joined an organisation and are happy to sit back and rely on others to do all the providing, and based on the progress they are making or even any intention to start it off the reliance on other 'provider's'will be for ever.

The fact that you have ignored that response and launched into some diatribe to sway away from the discussion point, suggests you believe that I am correct.

Yes we were, however player development is but one measure or aspect of the success of a professional sports team. You can claim "when in Rome", but when someone spends the money on a business, they can choose to run that business how they like. The time to force them to operate it in a certain way was when they joined, and the RFL had bargaining power. So it isn't required of them in their terms of joining, and they are free to operate as the see best for themselves. 

That fact you ignore all other aspects of the game, and choose to only harp after this one, suggests to me that you just want to criticize Toronto, and that's the only stick you can find to beat them with. (I'm sure you'll look around for another one now.)

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I don't give a flying one for for the success of other sports or the individuals of other sports, my primary and number one concern is Rugby League Football,

So instead of walking back your claim that Canadian's don't develop athletes and are "proud of it", when presented with ample evidence of the fact that we do, and reasons why it's not the focus in many leagues, you've now chosen to say you are only talking about rugby league. When that argument has always been started by Canadians saying that all of our sports teams have athletes from all over, and therefore clearly talking about sports in general and not just rugby league. Why would you have any expectation of Canada to have developed any rugby league players?

Quote

and my wish is that in Canada or Toronto in particular that those shakers and manipulators who can make things happen put some effort into 'EXPANDING' the game among the natives in respect of participation and eventually in time that will provide professional player's.

That may be your wish, but that isn't their primary purpose as a professional sports team.

Quote

Now will *someone sensible please explain to me why is there seemingly no effort being expanded to get the game initialized and going-on in the playing fields of Toronto,

Again, it it because that will have no effect on their competitiveness on the field or their profitability off of it. (or more accurately, not enough of an effect to be deemed worth the cost to those making the decisions). That's it. That's the only reason. They don't feel they need to, and nobody else is in a position to tell them how to run their business.

Quote

as I have stated previously if that infrastructure is not there to fall back on when as they will surely do fall on hard times then it will all have been a waste of time, money and effort.

That's for them to figure out. Good thing it's not your money. Businesses fail all the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a "waste". People gain experience, learn new skills, have good memories, etc. Tens of thousands of new people now know about rugby league that would not have before. Toronto now has a taste for top flight rugby - perhaps if they fail, someone sees an opportunity to try the same thing with a different approach.

Also, David Argyle is not the only owner. I believe there are 15 or so, he's just the main face / richest guy / originator. So it's not just reliant on one man.

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, TheReaper said:

Yes we were, however player development is but one measure or aspect of the success of a professional sports team. You can claim "when in Rome", but when someone spends the money on a business, they can choose to run that business how they like. The time to force them to operate it in a certain way was when they joined, and the RFL had bargaining power. So it isn't required of them in their terms of joining, and they are free to operate as the see best for themselves. 

 

Just want to point out, as someone who runs a manufacturing business, that you are often told what to do and how to run your business by various organisations outside of your business. Often for safety reasons but you cannot just run the business how you like... you can also change the rules whenever you like (we have an organisation that accredits us as safe and companies want us to be accredited as such, but the accrediting organisation change the rules on a yearly bases, it seems, and we have to adhere to them to still be a member.)

That said.. 

If the RFL want to make them run a junior set up to a certain standard then PUT IT IN THE RULES.... and as we always say whenever the conversation goes to licencing they MUST treat everyone within the organisation the same. IF they expect Toronto to do XYZ then they MUST make others do the same.. 

Until that actually happens I agree that we cannot expect/make Toronto do anything we would not be making someone else do and i dont believe running any form of junior development is in the rules for membership of super league or the rfl.. (though happy to be proven wrong).

Yet equally i would like to see Toronto do more on junior development as i think that will be a huge bonus to the game as a whole.  

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

Just want to point out, as someone who runs a manufacturing business, that you are often told what to do and how to run your business by various organisations outside of your business. Often for safety reasons but you cannot just run the business how you like... you can also change the rules whenever you like (we have an organisation that accredits us as safe and companies want us to be accredited as such, but the accrediting organisation change the rules on a yearly bases, it seems, and we have to adhere to them to still be a member.)

That said.. 

If the RFL want to make them run a junior set up to a certain standard then PUT IT IN THE RULES.... and as we always say whenever the conversation goes to licencing they MUST treat everyone within the organisation the same. IF they expect Toronto to do XYZ then they MUST make others do the same.. 

Until that actually happens I agree that we cannot expect/make Toronto do anything we would not be making someone else do and i dont believe running any form of junior development is in the rules for membership of super league or the rfl.. (though happy to be proven wrong).

Yet equally i would like to see Toronto do more on junior development as i think that will be a huge bonus to the game as a whole.  

Precisely so.

On your other point of PUT IT IN THE RULES, and everyone must comply by the same ruling, this will be a very moot point if SL decides as I expect they will return to a closed shop, the selection process to fill the SL roster will be either by a process such as the 'Framing the Future' document whereas everyone who so wishes can apply on point accruing set of criteria, or by invitation, it will be very interesting to see which way they go if I am correct that we will return to licensing.

[TheReaper]

54 minutes ago, RP London said:

Just want to point out, as someone who runs a manufacturing business, that you are often told what to do and how to run your business by various organisations outside of your business. Often for safety reasons but you cannot just run the business how you like... you can also change the rules whenever you like (we have an organisation that accredits us as safe and companies want us to be accredited as such, but the accrediting organisation change the rules on a yearly bases, it seems, and we have to adhere to them to still be a member.)

That said.. 

If the RFL want to make them run a junior set up to a certain standard then PUT IT IN THE RULES.... and as we always say whenever the conversation goes to licencing they MUST treat everyone within the organisation the same. IF they expect Toronto to do XYZ then they MUST make others do the same.. 

Until that actually happens I agree that we cannot expect/make Toronto do anything we would not be making someone else do and i dont believe running any form of junior development is in the rules for membership of super league or the rfl.. (though happy to be proven wrong).

Yet equally i would like to see Toronto do more on junior development as i think that will be a huge bonus to the game as a whole.  

Yeah fair enough, I didn't want to bog down my point with caveats. I did mean more along the lines of, nobody can tell a store owner if they have to train their own managers vs hiring experienced managers, the business will naturally do what serves it's purposes best. Sometimes they get it wrong, and fail, struggle along, bring in someone to see how they can fix it, etc. But yes, if they so desired the RFL could absolutely require it (of everyone) in their role as the "regulatory body". I think they'd have to spell out some fairly specific requirements as to what that would look like, as otherwise would any clubs with no interest would run some token training sessions and call it good.

I do that want to note that in all of this, I'm not saying the Wolfpack shouldn't do more, and that fans would't like to see it either. I'm simply saying that those claiming they must do it, either for altruistic purposes, in order to attract and keep fans, whatever reason, are overstepping. "Like to see" and "absolutely must" are different things. Would it be nice to see? Definitely. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

Yes we were, however player development is but one measure or aspect of the success of a professional sports team. You can claim "when in Rome", but when someone spends the money on a business, they can choose to run that business how they like. The time to force them to operate it in a certain way was when they joined, and the RFL had bargaining power. So it isn't required of them in their terms of joining, and they are free to operate as the see best for themselves. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Just want to point out, as someone who runs a manufacturing business, that you are often told what to do and how to run your business by various organisations outside of your business. Often for safety reasons but you cannot just run the business how you like... you can also change the rules whenever you like (we have an organisation that accredits us as safe and companies want us to be accredited as such, but the accrediting organisation change the rules on a yearly bases, it seems, and we have to adhere to them to still be a member.)

That said.. 

If the RFL want to make them run a junior set up to a certain standard then PUT IT IN THE RULES.... and as we always say whenever the conversation goes to licencing they MUST treat everyone within the organisation the same. IF they expect Toronto to do XYZ then they MUST make others do the same.. 

Until that actually happens I agree that we cannot expect/make Toronto do anything we would not be making someone else do and i dont believe running any form of junior development is in the rules for membership of super league or the rfl.. (though happy to be proven wrong).

Yet equally i would like to see Toronto do more on junior development as i think that will be a huge bonus to the game as a whole.  

I agree with some of this, but with one major exception. I am cool making concessions for TWP in the short term, based on things like weighting, or not being able to access local player dispensations, however they should only be allowed as long as there are attempts to actually develop local players.

The argument that it will take a decade or longer to develop local players and therefore access these cap dispensations is valid, and I agree with the dispensations - but if the club doesn't have a pathway (or a roadmap to create that pathway) then the dispensation should not be forthcoming. That cap dispensation is one of the incentives to get clubs to develop their own players - if there is no attempt, then there should be no dispensation. 

One of the real benefits of moving into a new area should be new player pools, that should be encouraged and incentivised as much as anywhere else. 

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

Yeah fair enough, I didn't want to bog down my point with caveats. I did mean more along the lines of, nobody can tell a store owner if they have to train their own managers vs hiring experienced managers, the business will naturally do what serves it's purposes best. Sometimes they get it wrong, and fail, struggle along, bring in someone to see how they can fix it, etc. But yes, if they so desired the RFL could absolutely require it (of everyone) in their role as the "regulatory body". I think they'd have to spell out some fairly specific requirements as to what that would look like, as otherwise would any clubs with no interest would run some token training sessions and call it good.

I do that want to note that in all of this, I'm not saying the Wolfpack shouldn't do more, and that fans would't like to see it either. I'm simply saying that those claiming they must do it, either for altruistic purposes, in order to attract and keep fans, whatever reason, are overstepping. "Like to see" and "absolutely must" are different things. Would it be nice to see? Definitely. 

Again I differ slightly from you here. I think it absolutely is a must. The area I disagree with others is how patient we will need to be. 

At the moment player development is encouraged through a series of incentives, hopefully as part of future TV deals TWP will form part of that incentive structure. 

RL must develop players, the top clubs must develop players, that includes TWP. From a standing start, waiting 10, 15, 20 years is reasonable in my eyes, but there does need to be a roadmap.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

I agree with some of this, but with one major exception. I am cool making concessions for TWP in the short term, based on things like weighting, or not being able to access local player dispensations, however they should only be allowed as long as there are attempts to actually develop local players.

The argument that it will take a decade or longer to develop local players and therefore access these cap dispensations is valid, and I agree with the dispensations - but if the club doesn't have a pathway (or a roadmap to create that pathway) then the dispensation should not be forthcoming. That cap dispensation is one of the incentives to get clubs to develop their own players - if there is no attempt, then there should be no dispensation. 

One of the real benefits of moving into a new area should be new player pools, that should be encouraged and incentivised as much as anywhere else. 

yes i agree with that.. my main point being that at the moment its all about what people would like to see.. they have no obligation to do anything.. 

Lets get it in the rules, even with a caveat.. but lets apply that rule across all clubs.. 

without that its down to when someone thinks the time is right.. and frankly people on a message board will not know that, the people on the ground will only be able to make an educated guess themselves!

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Precisely so.

On your other point of PUT IT IN THE RULES, and everyone must comply by the same ruling, this will be a very moot point if SL decides as I expect they will return to a closed shop, the selection process to fill the SL roster will be either by a process such as the 'Framing the Future' document whereas everyone who so wishes can apply on point accruing set of criteria, or by invitation, it will be very interesting to see which way they go if I am correct that we will return to licensing.

A please lets not go down the hypothetical route of "i think this may happen down the line".. 

if, but, maybe.. 

either way, licencing or not, get it in the rules or stop lambasting a club for not doing it.. once its in the rules make sure everyone does it, or stop lambasting others.. 

there are a lot of glass houses and a lot of stones in this debate.. there are also a lot of holier than thous.. ( I am not saying you are one, i know you have done a lot from our off board conversations, as have i, but there are a fair few posters who pontificate without either them or their club actually doing anything themselves, but expecting a brand new club to magic things out of thin air). 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

Yeah fair enough, I didn't want to bog down my point with caveats. I did mean more along the lines of, nobody can tell a store owner if they have to train their own managers vs hiring experienced managers, the business will naturally do what serves it's purposes best. Sometimes they get it wrong, and fail, struggle along, bring in someone to see how they can fix it, etc. But yes, if they so desired the RFL could absolutely require it (of everyone) in their role as the "regulatory body". I think they'd have to spell out some fairly specific requirements as to what that would look like, as otherwise would any clubs with no interest would run some token training sessions and call it good.

I do that want to note that in all of this, I'm not saying the Wolfpack shouldn't do more, and that fans would't like to see it either. I'm simply saying that those claiming they must do it, either for altruistic purposes, in order to attract and keep fans, whatever reason, are overstepping. "Like to see" and "absolutely must" are different things. Would it be nice to see? Definitely. 

I think the last paragraph is key on this. 

a lot of the language on both sides of the argument is quite harsh in terms of must/must not, can/cannot but in reality both parties agree broadly... 

It should happen, but it is also going to take time, it should be started soon because it is going to take time. but the debate seems to polarise where as in reality there is broad agreement IMHO.

[Oldbear]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

*Where are you Oldbear?

When you typed that Harry I was in bed, Vancouver is 8 hours behind the UK, now it’s my morning and I’m off to work soon.

I think you make some fair points, as I have mentioned before my 2 sons played provincial standard RU, so their team mates were the best in the province, yet no one from the Wolfpack ever came to check out those games, in fact the only guy playing in those rep teams that did end up playing at the Wolfpack, Quinn, did it off his own back reaching out via the ill fated “Last Tackle” show. I just feel that if the Wolfpack were genuine about finding young players then the RU High School Provincial Championships in the 2 strongest provinces would be a good start. It’s also noticeable that Ottawa seems already to be making more of an effort. Of course I have no evidence but I can only assume that the answer is that Mr Argyle wanted the fast track route to SL and then the fast track route to the top, typically that means the focus is solely on the first team squad, and as much as some posters have said Canadians don’t care where their heroes come from, I can tell you having been to Whitecaps soccer and BC Lions CFL that the loudest crowd cheers are reserved for the Canadian boys!

[Oldbear]

Loved Dave T’s post, he is right, ALL clubs need to do more and ANY new expansion clubs should at least have a road map on how they will develop players and be employing someone with that role. I think we can all accept that it takes time to develop talent in new areas, but you have to do something to try to develop it. Had the Wolfpack started in year 1 then maybe a stream of players wouldn’t be too far away, but the fact that we have got to year 4 with no road map is worrying.

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I agree with some of this, but with one major exception. I am cool making concessions for TWP in the short term, based on things like weighting, or not being able to access local player dispensations, however they should only be allowed as long as there are attempts to actually develop local players.

The argument that it will take a decade or longer to develop local players and therefore access these cap dispensations is valid, and I agree with the dispensations - but if the club doesn't have a pathway (or a roadmap to create that pathway) then the dispensation should not be forthcoming. That cap dispensation is one of the incentives to get clubs to develop their own players - if there is no attempt, then there should be no dispensation. 

One of the real benefits of moving into a new area should be new player pools, that should be encouraged and incentivised as much as anywhere else. 

This is all very fair and I'm actually surprised the RFL haven't done something like this.

[tms]

34 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

When you typed that Harry I was in bed, Vancouver is 8 hours behind the UK, now it’s my morning and I’m off to work soon.

I think you make some fair points, as I have mentioned before my 2 sons played provincial standard RU, so their team mates were the best in the province, yet no one from the Wolfpack ever came to check out those games, in fact the only guy playing in those rep teams that did end up playing at the Wolfpack, Quinn, did it off his own back reaching out via the ill fated “Last Tackle” show. I just feel that if the Wolfpack were genuine about finding young players then the RU High School Provincial Championships in the 2 strongest provinces would be a good start. It’s also noticeable that Ottawa seems already to be making more of an effort. Of course I have no evidence but I can only assume that the answer is that Mr Argyle wanted the fast track route to SL and then the fast track route to the top, typically that means the focus is solely on the first team squad, and as much as some posters have said Canadians don’t care where their heroes come from, I can tell you having been to Whitecaps soccer and BC Lions CFL that the loudest crowd cheers are reserved for the Canadian boys!

Interesting letter

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/mailbox-there-is-no-shortage-of-rugby-players-in-canada/

[Man of Kent]

20 minutes ago, POR said:

Interesting letter

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/mailbox-there-is-no-shortage-of-rugby-players-in-canada/

Canada is an established rugby nation. OK, it’s hardly New Zealand but it’s still a ‘White Dominion’ where rugby is a (small) part of the social fabric.

Perhaps David Argyle is worried about stepping on union’s toes or being seen as a competitor?

And thinking about it, maybe that’s why the London Skolars thing didn’t come off? 

That might’ve been a decent feeder club arrangement - a bit like Melbourne in QLD - that attracted young rugby players of both codes. Perhaps the other ‘Wolfpack’ - Saracens - talked them out of it?

Or maybe Toronto are content to be a UK-based club and not bother with player development to save costs?

All wild speculation, of course

[Oldbear]

11 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Canada is an established rugby nation. OK, it’s hardly New Zealand but it’s still a ‘White Dominion’ where rugby is a (small) part of the social fabric.

Perhaps David Argyle is worried about stepping on union’s toes or being seen as a competitor?

I think you may be onto something here. The Wolfpack needed to build a supporter base, they obviously don’t want to upset union for fear of losing a lot of support. I just don’t buy the “it’s all rugby, all friends together” line, Rugby Canada may be a disorganized mess, but one thing that might galvanize them is a fight against league. Currently they don’t care, League is very weak in Canada, virtually none existent in BC (Rugby Canada’s heartland), so no threat. If however the Wolfpack started making inroads and taking juniors away from union then the so called harmonious existence would soon fall apart. I know I may sound paranoid but I don’t trust union, too many lessons from the past to draw on!

[RP London]

13 hours ago, Oldbear said:

When you typed that Harry I was in bed, Vancouver is 8 hours behind the UK, now it’s my morning and I’m off to work soon.

I think you make some fair points, as I have mentioned before my 2 sons played provincial standard RU, so their team mates were the best in the province, yet no one from the Wolfpack ever came to check out those games, in fact the only guy playing in those rep teams that did end up playing at the Wolfpack, Quinn, did it off his own back reaching out via the ill fated “Last Tackle” show. I just feel that if the Wolfpack were genuine about finding young players then the RU High School Provincial Championships in the 2 strongest provinces would be a good start. It’s also noticeable that Ottawa seems already to be making more of an effort. Of course I have no evidence but I can only assume that the answer is that Mr Argyle wanted the fast track route to SL and then the fast track route to the top, typically that means the focus is solely on the first team squad, and as much as some posters have said Canadians don’t care where their heroes come from, I can tell you having been to Whitecaps soccer and BC Lions CFL that the loudest crowd cheers are reserved for the Canadian boys!

picking the bit in bold out.. there is a chance that we look back on this with a slightly different view than we do now too.. it could easily be that although Toronto dont develop so well on the Junior front themselves that they are the catalyst to a number of other clubs that do. A successful Toronto that paves the way for others to follow is a definite possibility. At which point I would not be so worried if they go for all out success to make places like Ottawa and NYC and (fill in north american city here) "think this looks good, i like this game and the league etc" and they join in with junior development as something they want to look at... 

This would not be a bad result for Rugby League in the long term, even if Toronto do not do it exactly the way many would like. 

just a thought though.. history does tend to judge things differently to how you see them at the time. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

picking the bit in bold out.. there is a chance that we look back on this with a slightly different view than we do now too.. it could easily be that although Toronto dont develop so well on the Junior front themselves that they are the catalyst to a number of other clubs that do. A successful Toronto that paves the way for others to follow is a definite possibility. At which point I would not be so worried if they go for all out success to make places like Ottawa and NYC and (fill in north american city here) "think this looks good, i like this game and the league etc" and they join in with junior development as something they want to look at... 

This would not be a bad result for Rugby League in the long term, even if Toronto do not do it exactly the way many would like. 

just a thought though.. history does tend to judge things differently to how you see them at the time. 

From my expierience of North Americans (company sale) if TWP do acheive as you say and percolate to the top of the Pile, then those other City's Ottawa, NY or any where else will want to emulate them and quite rightly so, they will want meaningful fixtures.

I am hoping that Ottawa do venture on this 'local' approach, but if it is not producing the correct results it will not be long I think before the Toronto 'blueprint' is copied.

Is it 10 locals in Mr Perez's plan he states he wants in his Ottawa team? Maybe they would be competitive to a certain degree in League one, but the Championship would be a bridge to far for novice players, do you think they would be happy to proceed with the plan if they were on the wrong side of some big scores week in week out?

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

From my expierience of North Americans (company sale) if TWP do acheive as you say and percolate to the top of the Pile, then those other City's Ottawa, NY or any where else will want to emulate them and quite rightly so, they will want meaningful fixtures.

I am hoping that Ottawa do venture on this 'local' approach, but if it is not producing the correct results it will not be long I think before the Toronto 'blueprint' is copied.

Is it 10 locals in Mr Perez's plan he states he wants in his Ottawa team? Maybe they would be competitive to a certain degree in League one, but the Championship would be a bridge to far for novice players, do you think they would be happy to proceed with the plan if they were on the wrong side of some big scores week in week out?

I cannot answer those questions because i am not them.. 

This is the problem.. there are so many ifs and buts and people on both sides of the argument use definitives as if those what ifs will definitely happen. You think the Toronto blueprint will be copied, but you dont know that for sure, they may be happy to carry on.. Equally success in Toronto may be used for Toronto to start ploughing heavily into the junior game (just because they haven't done yet may be part of the plan rather than pure negligence).. therefore the Toronto "blueprint" may not be a bad one.. 

we are far to worried about what if this and what if that rather than lets have it in our mind but actually there is the other side of the "what if" scenario that could be really good for us and i think at the moment the upside is a lot larger than the potential downside. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

I cannot answer those questions because i am not them.. 

This is the problem.. there are so many ifs and buts and people on both sides of the argument use definitives as if those what ifs will definitely happen. You think the Toronto blueprint will be copied, but you dont know that for sure, they may be happy to carry on.. Equally success in Toronto may be used for Toronto to start ploughing heavily into the junior game (just because they haven't done yet may be part of the plan rather than pure negligence).. therefore the Toronto "blueprint" may not be a bad one.. 

we are far to worried about what if this and what if that rather than lets have it in our mind but actually there is the other side of the "what if" scenario that could be really good for us and i think at the moment the upside is a lot larger than the potential downside. 

OK I thought this was a discussion page wherby people 'suppose' differing scenarios and discuss them, just as you did in the post I answered.