Jump to content
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

What type of channels/networks are these three being mentioned here? Who has biggest reach etc? 

Sportsnet (akin to Sky Sports or BT Sports) as CBC Sports (similar to BBC Sports) was online only & Game TV is a very minor Player, something like our Challenge TV Channel. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Umm they've increased their cap  by 5 percent 

Good but I thought that still had to be agreed!

If they have I'm glad to be wrong.


RL1.JPG.6a10be03c5528650e188f078de012540.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure it would be any fairer. 

The fact is we make these dispensations and allowances because of the unfairness of it as a blunt tool

That makes it unfair in other ways but it's unfair and doesnt fit with the structure we have

 

I think the dispensations that stand at present were put in place because better foo clubs insisted their better offness needed recognition in the cap.


RL1.JPG.6a10be03c5528650e188f078de012540.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why should leeds spending be dictated by Salfords affordability?

Then it's not a Salary Cap because it has inbuilt unfairness right from the outset.

I f you're going to argue some clubs deserve more then all it does for the most part is stop over spending and in no way creates a level playing field.

Expansion teams are a very different matter but that would defy SC logic too!


RL1.JPG.6a10be03c5528650e188f078de012540.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically we're f****ed because of Sky's greed. Doesnt speak well for the ongoing relationship between Super League and Sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

No it wouldnt. 

Structural bias means you can take a blanket approach to rules that treat clubs differently.

I don't know why people are still pushing this strange argument that rules dont treat clubs differently even if they are applied equally.

In fact that is literally the intention of the salary cap to start with. To restrict some clubs for the benefit of others.

Your argument is jumbled.

There is a difference to treating all clubs fairly and treating all clubs the same. 

I am all for treating clubs differently, as long as they are all treated fairly. It was others asking for the same treatment, but then also to be treated differently.

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Not good....this might be the chaotic year until the season is over and things finally get settled.  Its like you got two guys chest to chest or something...push...push.  

My tale on it is Sky will give in but only if there are very good viewership numbers coming out of Australia.

I heard that TWP were supposed to be on TSN, but then the sky issue sabotaged that and a competitor stepped in. Yet another case of the heartlands holding expansion back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Umm they've increased their cap  by 5 percent 

Have they? I know it was a proposal but not that it had been passed...

 

Quote

However, it’s understood that some clubs are vehemently against the proposal and have informed both the RFL and Elstone that they do not support their suggestion.

When contacted by League Express, the RFL said the proposals would only be finalised if clubs were to agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIWIT said:

So basically we're f****ed because of Sky's greed. Doesnt speak well for the ongoing relationship between Super League and Sky.

Greed?

Sky paid £100m+ for the rights, it/it's new owner can do with them what it likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TBone said:

Greed?

Sky paid £100m+ for the rights, it/it's new owner can do with them what it likes.

That is a very bad attitude...something needs to be worked out or Sky can pound salt...the viewers from Australia are not going to be happy if they cannot watch the Wolfpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why Sky would be bothered about viewers in Australia (other than those of its news channel). Comcast, its new owner, might?

Edited by TBone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TBone said:

Have they? I know it was a proposal but not that it had been passed...

 

 

It would be really interesting to see which clubs that are against and who are for. I'd guess from the media and recent history that Hull FC are one of those against. Of course there can be differences between the Club board and the fans. 

Edited by Tommygilf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It would be really interesting to see which clubs that are against and who are for. I'd guess from the media and recent history that Hull FC are one of those against. Of course there can be differences between the Club board and the fans. 

Add KR to the list as well. Must be something in the water round these parts. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-toronto-wolfpack-mcdermott-3782122

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No there isnt. You can apply the rules the same but you are still treating clubs differently.

You could have a rule that said all games not played on your home continent give you a 40+ head start. You can apply that rule equally but It does not treat all clubs equally

Applying the same rules, in the same way to all clubs is not a neutral position. It is not a position of equality. Ignoring structural bias that is created by the rules is a choice to benefit one side over another

If clubs vote to ignore the bias created by the SC and not allow Toronto a dispensation they haven't voted to treat the clubs equally. They haven't voted to treat all clubs the same. they have voted in favour of disadvantaging one club through enacting a rule which disproportionately affects Toronto

Again, your point is all jumbled and I've not a clue why you are even making it. 

Speak to those TWP fans who are complaining about being treated differently whilst demanding to be treated differently. 

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chamey said:

I heard that TWP were supposed to be on TSN, but then the sky issue sabotaged that and a competitor stepped in. Yet another case of the heartlands holding expansion back.

I want to agree with you, however that sounds like sky found more money elsewhere, which is unfortunately their right as the rights holders

Toronto (as much as I want them to) do not have control of their TV rights while in SL, so if sky can get more money from SNworld then from TSN (or found out how much TSN would have paid twp Vs how much they would have charged twp for the rights) and thought it was good good money sense to do so,good for them.

Canadians get your wallets out and pay for the sub! (Sorry!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Add KR to the list as well. Must be something in the water round these parts. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/neil-hudgell-toronto-wolfpack-mcdermott-3782122

What is incorrect or unfactual about Hudgell's comments ?

  • Like 2

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Derwent said:

What is incorrect or unfactual about Hudgell's comments ?

I'm not sure I understand this point that Hudgell makes:

"For the clubs, extra central distribution is not a windfall because we are subsidising their participation in the competition. It goes to fill that extra expense in some ways." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TBone said:

Greed?

Sky paid £100m+ for the rights, it/it's new owner can do with them what it likes.

 

18 minutes ago, TBone said:

Not sure why Sky would be bothered about viewers in Australia (other than those of its news channel). Comcast, its new owner, might?

Toronto gets none of that money. Instead TWP have a deal that they can sell the rights to televise their games - but the catch is Sky still own those rights and want TWP to pay for that. Clearly what Sky thinks those rights are worth and TWP thinks they're worth were too far apart to reach an agreement - and I'm pretty darn sure it's Sky asking far too much considering the other costs TWP would have to bear to actually produce those games and get them on the air.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Any salary cap has inbuilt unfairness. That's my point

Mine too!


RL1.JPG.6a10be03c5528650e188f078de012540.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's Sky bashing, not Toronto bashing. I think everyone wants to see as many games as possible aired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I understand this point that Hudgell makes:

"For the clubs, extra central distribution is not a windfall because we are subsidising their participation in the competition. It goes to fill that extra expense in some ways." 

I assume he’s talking about the expense clubs will incur going to Toronto ? As I understand it SL clubs are having to pay their own travel and accommodation expenses. Plus I think he’s also alluding to the fact that match day revenue will likely be lower for home games against Toronto due to lack of travelling support.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

 

Toronto gets none of that money. Instead TWP have a deal that they can sell the rights to televise their games - but the catch is Sky still own those rights and want TWP to pay for that. Clearly what Sky thinks those rights are worth and TWP thinks they're worth were too far apart to reach an agreement - and I'm pretty darn sure it's Sky asking far too much considering the other costs TWP would have to bear to actually produce those games and get them on the air.

I understand all that. The legal position is straight forward - Sky own the rights. It is not Sky's concern what it may/not cost TWP to exploit the rights. TWP is providing a windfall opportunity to improve the performance of the asset..

BTW, if Sky's valuation of part of the rights it currently owns is high, it may be useful in the oncoming SL rights negotiations.

P.S. It maybe that Sky are only using TWPs own, previously alluded to, estimate of their worth?

Edited by TBone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...