Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

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!


"It is, by a million miles, a better sport than union. League is 80 minutes of physicality, speed, good handling, good kicking. It’s continuous."

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
Just now, Derwent said:

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.

So sounding utterly tinpot as an organisation then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

So sounding utterly tinpot as an organisation then?

Not if this was all agreed prior to admitting Toronto to SL, in which case it’s just adhering to the agreement. I’d assume Hudgell et al know more about the promises made by Argyll and others than posters on here do. 

  • Like 2

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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." 

Indeed. The 11 clubs got a big whack of cash from TWP's share of central distribution AND get their travel and accommodation paid when they play away in Toronto. Where exactly is there any subsidy or extra expense?

Hudgell's team is, incidentally, almost without exception selected by pundits to finish 12/12 this season so I can smell the fear from here.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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.

They are not paying their own way.  Toronto are footing the bill and also gave up their funding.  That was part of the last minute deal SL made with Toronto from 3days before the grand final last season....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Have you been to a RL game in the UK ?

Several, my dude.

Particularly enjoyed Summer Bash 2018 when Wolfpack won in the final seconds because Leigh missed the penalty kick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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. 

It's not jumbled at all. It's perfectly simple and I dont know why you are pretending you cant understand.

Its not the Toronto fans who are wrong. You're argument is incorrect.

Your point that applying the same rules is treating them the same albeit unfairly is wrong. 

It is not a neutral position to enforce the rules the same. To enforce rules which disproportionately affect them is not treating them the same. 

To treat Toronto the same will require them to operate under different rules to what we have now.

I'm not talking about fairness here, I'm talking about treating them the same.

 If a rule disproportionately affects one party, applying that rule cannot be said to treat that party the same. 

Toronto nor there fans are asking to be treated differently, they are asking to be treated the same. It was the current rules whose disproportionate affect that treated them differently 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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.

Very likely. Sky probably thinks the presence of the new kids are going to bring in increased viewership.

But they are also to be partners with SL and that means ensuring their ongoing growth. They are definitely not helping out TWP right now by taking a very short term view. Almost as if they want as much as they can now and aren't really that interested in the longer-term. I.e. a new contract for 2021 and beyond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Derwent said:

Not if this was all agreed prior to admitting Toronto to SL, in which case it’s just adhering to the agreement. I’d assume Hudgell et al know more about the promises made by Argyll and others than posters on here do. 

The agreement actually means little to me tbh, it is what it is and for what its worth agreements are fluid. Complaining about being a pro sport team having to pay for travelling (especially when you've agreed to not give that team central funding) and the totally debunked "away fans" myth is totally tinpot. 

Plus it seems like there are doubts about whether they even are having to pay for flights etc. and they are helped by Toronto agreeing to only having 11 Canadian home games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

1. Your point that applying the same rules is treating them the same albeit unfairly is wrong. 

 

2. Toronto nor there fans are asking to be treated differently, they are asking to be treated the same. It was the current rules whose disproportionate affect that treated them differently 

1. See, that is not my point in the slightest. 

I am advocating different rules. I have always stated that clubs are different and I have no burning desire for clubs to be treated the same. We should do what is right for the game and clubs. 

2. Try reading the conversation you jumped in on. A TWP fan was claiming it was unfair that rules were applied differently to them. In a thread where many TWP fans are asking for the rules to be applied differentl. I think the latter group are right, they should be treated differently. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Loup said:

Several, my dude.

Particularly enjoyed Summer Bash 2018 when Wolfpack won in the final seconds because Leigh missed the penalty kick.

We lost because of our Australian half backs daft decision to kick a crossfire bomb to the quickest player on the pitch ( Liam May ) instead of kicking the ball dead with 4 minutes to go 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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.

It would be good if this travel point was clarified as it would quieten down some of the noise here if that was the case. 

I'm not convinced match day revenue will be lower than the team they replaced. I think that comment from Hudgell is poor. But it is interesting as more and more detail comes out that some of the events quoted here are being spun differently. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

They are not paying their own way.  Toronto are footing the bill and also gave up their funding.  That was part of the last minute deal SL made with Toronto from 3days before the grand final last season....

Hudgell's quote was interesting that TWP didn't play ball with the information requested from SLE. Maybe their negotiating tactic backfired particularly with SLE holding all the cards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say though, like many within RL I don't believe much of what is spouted in the local media. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...