Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

John Drake

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
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." 

TIWIT

TIWIT

Posted
Posted
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.

Oxford

Oxford

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

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

Mine too!

Soy Ramon y este es mi camión....

 

 

 

TIWIT

TIWIT

Posted
Posted

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

Derwent

Derwent

Posted
Posted
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

TBone

TBone

Posted
Posted
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?

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
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?

Derwent

Derwent

Posted
Posted
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. 

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Loup

Loup

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

 

 

TboneFromTO

TboneFromTO

Posted
Posted
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....

Loup

Loup

Posted
Posted
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.

TIWIT

TIWIT

Posted
Posted
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

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
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.

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
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. 

GUBRATS

GUBRATS

Posted
Posted
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 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
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. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
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. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted

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

Cameron Highlander

Cameron Highlander

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.totalrl.com/do-toronto-wolfpack-really-bring-no-away-fans/

"But whichever conclusion you decided to come to, there is one thing you can almost certainly claim as fact.

Toronto Wolfpack have not damaged attendances. They’ve actually enhanced them"

 

I've read with interest the last 15 or so pages of this thread dealing primarily with the Pros and Cons of granting TWP additional Salary Cap (S.C.) room/space.  I have not commented since most of the posters (say about 8 or so in number), are much more knowledgeable than I on all the rules and regulations around the S.C., and the ancillary maters like the many and various dispensations of one kind or another that are available to clubs.  The following is a back-and-forth dialogue that I had on a Wolfpack Facebook Fans page on January 4, 2020 with a gentleman from London, England on what I believe is/are an arguable merit(s) to granting TWP some additional S.C. room.  I'm prompted to share this due to Mr. Hudgell's assertation that "match day revenue will likely be lower for home games against Toronto due to lack of travelling support".

 

 

  • Michael Hall
  •  I really hope there are no major injuries during the season. A 23 man squad is far too small for Super League, and they have no reserves to call upon.
    I wonder how close to the cap they are. Imp sure any potential players would want a higher salary than a UK club would pay them, given the amount of time spent traveling and being away from home.
    Hide or report this
  •  
    Allan Carswell IMHO a 23 player squad will not cut it. As I've said several times before, in L1 and Championship ALL the teams played OUT OF THEIR SKINS when they played TWP. This practice will continue with the SL teams who will want to put the TWP upstarts "in their place" so to speak. Injuries are going to take a toll. TWP deserve some dispensation WRT the salary cap.
    3
    Edit or delete this
    •  
       
       
       
      Michael Hall How much, and for how long would you give them dispensation of the cap?
      Hide or report this
    •  
      Allan Carswell OK let's say we look at the SBW monetary benefit to the Super League collectively. Lots of assumptions of course. Season is 29 games. TWP will play 17 of them in England, 1 in France, and 11 in Canada. Assume SBW puts an extra 1,000 bums on seats for those 18 games out of Canada. I've seen that number (1,000) quoted several times and also that it is considered conservative. Assume an SL adult game ticket is Thirty (30) pounds. Revenue increase then for the other 11 SL teams collectively due to SBW presence = 18 (games) x 1,000 (extra bums) x 30 (pounds sterling) = 540,000.00 Pounds Sterling. Ergo.......give the TWP then an extra 540,000 pounds sterling on the Salary Cap. And for how long you ask.....for this year and next year (2020/2021) being what SBW has signed for. Now remember.....that 540,000 pounds of extra revenue will flow DIRECTLY into the 11 SL teams bank accounts AND, if dispensation is granted TWP will HAVE TO SPEND that much more money on player salaries. Remember that TWP get zero, zip, zilch Central Funding and I do believe they also still need to pay for the travel and accommodation costs of the other 11 teams when they visit Canada. Talk about getting the short straw!!!!! Remember, lots of assumptions here.....don't beat me up for them.
      3
      Edit or delete this
    •  
      Allan Carswell OH, and I forgot to say that on top of the extra 540,000 pounds in ticket revenue the SL Clubs' coffers will also benefit from food and drink income, possibly parking income, and maybe even some programme and merchandise sales income. Being as how there are survey results out just today that say that 82% of Rugby (both codes combined) game day spectators quaff alcoholic beverages at games, then IMHO you might want to double that 540,000 pounds. So......call it a nice round 1 million pounds added revenue to the other 11 SL clubs bank accounts thanks to SBW and the TWP!!!!!
      2
      Edit or delete this
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cameron Highlander said:

 

 

 

 

  • Michael Hall
  •  I really hope there are no major injuries during the season. A 23 man squad is far too small for Super League, and they have no reserves to call upon.
    I wonder how close to the cap they are. Imp sure any potential players would want a higher salary than a UK club would pay them, given the amount of time spent traveling and being away from home.
    Hide or report this
  •  
    Allan Carswell IMHO a 23 player squad will not cut it. As I've said several times before, in L1 and Championship ALL the teams played OUT OF THEIR SKINS when they played TWP. This practice will continue with the SL teams who will want to put the TWP upstarts "in their place" so to speak. Injuries are going to take a toll. TWP deserve some dispensation WRT the salary cap.
    3
    Edit or delete this
    •  
       
      I've read with interest the last 15 or so pages of this thread dealing primarily with the Pros and Cons of granting TWP additional Salary Cap (S.C.) room/space.  I have not commented since most of the posters (say about 8 or so in number), are much more knowledgeable than I on all the rules and regulations around the S.C., and the ancillary maters like the many and various dispensations of one kind or another that are available to clubs.  The following is a back-and-forth dialogue that I had on a Wolfpack Facebook Fans page on January 4, 2020 with a gentleman from London, England on what I believe is/are an arguable merit(s) to granting TWP some additional S.C. room.  I'm prompted to share this due to Mr. Hudgell's assertation that "match day revenue will likely be lower for home games against Toronto due to lack of travelling support".
       
       
      Michael Hall How much, and for how long would you give them dispensation of the cap?
      Hide or report this
    •  
      Allan Carswell OK let's say we look at the SBW monetary benefit to the Super League collectively. Lots of assumptions of course. Season is 29 games. TWP will play 17 of them in England, 1 in France, and 11 in Canada. Assume SBW puts an extra 1,000 bums on seats for those 18 games out of Canada. I've seen that number (1,000) quoted several times and also that it is considered conservative. Assume an SL adult game ticket is Thirty (30) pounds. Revenue increase then for the other 11 SL teams collectively due to SBW presence = 18 (games) x 1,000 (extra bums) x 30 (pounds sterling) = 540,000.00 Pounds Sterling. Ergo.......give the TWP then an extra 540,000 pounds sterling on the Salary Cap. And for how long you ask.....for this year and next year (2020/2021) being what SBW has signed for. Now remember.....that 540,000 pounds of extra revenue will flow DIRECTLY into the 11 SL teams bank accounts AND, if dispensation is granted TWP will HAVE TO SPEND that much more money on player salaries. Remember that TWP get zero, zip, zilch Central Funding and I do believe they also still need to pay for the travel and accommodation costs of the other 11 teams when they visit Canada. Talk about getting the short straw!!!!! Remember, lots of assumptions here.....don't beat me up for them.
      3
      Edit or delete this
    •  
      Allan Carswell OH, and I forgot to say that on top of the extra 540,000 pounds in ticket revenue the SL Clubs' coffers will also benefit from food and drink income, possibly parking income, and maybe even some programme and merchandise sales income. Being as how there are survey results out just today that say that 82% of Rugby (both codes combined) game day spectators quaff alcoholic beverages at games, then IMHO you might want to double that 540,000 pounds. So......call it a nice round 1 million pounds added revenue to the other 11 SL clubs bank accounts thanks to SBW and the TWP!!!!!
      2
      Edit or delete this

There are some terrible assumptions in that post. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.