Jump to content
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TIWIT said:

Toronto rugby fans will turn their attention to the Arrows now. RL blows up their beachhead in North America and just hands it over to RU. The shortsighted stupidity of RL and flat-out greed of SL owners boggles the mind... 

I would far sooner watch RL than RU, but if that's the only rugby I'm going to get that's what I'll take.

Yes, it's entirely the fault of everyone except the Toronto management...

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

Saw a tweet from Luisick, no money stranded in UK and about to be evicted as he is unable to work because of the visa issues.

Whatever the right or wrongs these players should receive help to return home. The new buyers of the club should refund the money.

 

Some of the people who've replied to this on Twitter are bitter little people who'd be first whining if they had a similar thing happen to them, if only they had the talent and skills rather than just being bitter little people.

The sport invited them in, it's our mess, we have to fix it, even if it's to simply make sure it doesn't get worse.

  • Like 5

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


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

Some of the people who've replied to this on Twitter are bitter little people who'd be first whining if they had a similar thing happen to them, if only they had the talent and skills rather than just being bitter little people.

The sport invited them in, it's our mess, we have to fix it, even if it's to simply make sure it doesn't get worse.

The welfare of players is paramount, I can only assume any savings have been spent on living costs for the last 3 months with no wages. Time and time again we are told there is a live cap monitoring, how can those in charge not be aware of the situation?

There is an issue with non UK clubs going bust as players have no redress from the government pot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The morality of leaving folks stranded and up sh it creek leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth.

whilst I feel for Toronto fans and the loss of potential growth,  the game is better without the likes of argyle. 

I am of course making a very broad assumption that Argyle is not stranded  without means of supporting himself or has been evicted from his home.

 

A lot of people are going to have been burnt very badly by this in many different - and the game of rugby league itself will be damaged.

But we all know that the real villains just dust themselves down and walk away.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ckn said:

Some of the people who've replied to this on Twitter are bitter little people who'd be first whining if they had a similar thing happen to them, if only they had the talent and skills rather than just being bitter little people.

The sport invited them in, it's our mess, we have to fix it, even if it's to simply make sure it doesn't get worse.

Did we invite them? Or was it just Perez’s idea, he sold The RFL a dream and they said “yeah” without any sort of strategy or plan to their inclusion. 

Though, that doesn’t matter right now. It’s the helping of those in bother, like Lussick that matters. The inquest can happen later. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Some of the people who've replied to this on Twitter are bitter little people who'd be first whining if they had a similar thing happen to them, if only they had the talent and skills rather than just being bitter little people.

The sport invited them in, it's our mess, we have to fix it, even if it's to simply make sure it doesn't get worse.

Other sports do, whether that's player's unions or association. Not always perfectly but there's far more player support available, including payment of missed wages.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


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

Did we invite them? Or was it just Perez’s idea, he sold The RFL a dream and they said “yeah” without any sort of strategy or plan to their inclusion. 

Though, that doesn’t matter right now. It’s the helping of those in bother, like Lussick that matters. The inquest can happen later. 

Yes, Yes & Yes. 

It was Perez's Idea, the RFL did invite them, and yes as a brotherhood we have a responsibility to help them out. Although that has never shown any backbone previously, Kent Invicta, Scarborough Pirates, Mansfield Marksmen, Gloucester All Golds, Hemel Hempstead, Blackpool Borough, Huyton. et al

Edited by Bleep1673

Sex and Money are like Oxygen

They're not important until you're not getting enough.

Share this post


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

Did we invite them? Or was it just Perez’s idea, he sold The RFL a dream and they said “yeah” without any sort of strategy or plan to their inclusion. 

Though, that doesn’t matter right now. It’s the helping of those in bother, like Lussick that matters. The inquest can happen later. 

They didn’t get in without an invite approved by the key stakeholders. We can’t pretend that didn’t happen or with 20/20 hindsight complain that we didn’t insist on indemnities first. 

  • Like 1

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can The RFL revoke a licence? I take it Argyle will still own the Toronto licence should no one buy them, so can The RFL pull that from him and reallocate it elsewhere if they wanted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ckn said:

They didn’t get in without an invite approved by the key stakeholders. We can’t pretend that didn’t happen or that we didn’t insist on indemnities first. 

Acceptance of an application is very different from an invitation though?

That said, if players produce an eviction notice from employer provided housing to the RFL, the RFL should put them up. Furthermore if TWP overseas players living in the UK request a flight home, the RFL should pay. This sport was founded to pay working class players, to that end, if an owner fails to uphold principles on which the code was built then the RFL must step in to safeguard players basic welfare. 

Edited by Smudger06
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Can The RFL revoke a licence? I take it Argyle will still own the Toronto licence should no one buy them, so can The RFL pull that from him and reallocate it elsewhere if they wanted?

Depends on the terms, small print of that particular participation agreement which you'd imagine was stamped up by solicitors of both parties. I think the participation Agreement as already been null & voided. I think there is a short window as of now for someone to come forward with the potential to sign a similar agreement if they take over the Wolfack brand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Can The RFL revoke a licence? I take it Argyle will still own the Toronto licence should no one buy them, so can The RFL pull that from him and reallocate it elsewhere if they wanted?

As far as I'm aware they don't have a license as such. Their membership to SL has been revoked and they aren't full members of the RFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Can The RFL revoke a licence? I take it Argyle will still own the Toronto licence should no one buy them, so can The RFL pull that from him and reallocate it elsewhere if they wanted?

There are currently no such things as licences in English rugby league, just RFL members and guest clubs with participation agreements. Toronto are now neither, so to all intents and purposes don't exist from the English perspective. 

That said, the business still technically exists, comprising a mailing list of Canadian ticket buyers, some club branding, and some partnerships like with Toronto council. Plus rapidly decreasing 'intangible goodwill'.

If someone were to buy out the business quickly before further brand damage becomes lethal, then there's a chance a functioning club could be retained in Toronto. 

Then RFL and SL would have to decide whether and at which level they want to readmit them.

EDIT: Of course as others have pointed out, a decision to buy out Argyle, and a decision to readmit at whatever tier are dependent on each other and need to be taken together. Unclear if that is actually happening in such a joined up way. 

Edited by Toby Chopra
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we need to come away from the term licence.....it's causing confusion and is merely a relic of the Super League 'Licencing' era of about 6 Seasons. 

There's 37 Clubs, 35 are RFL members, 2 are on Particpation Agreements. RFL membership basically comes with an embedded generic participation agreement. 

The difference between membership and Particpation agreement come down to:

Members have a say (voting rights) 

Membership is perpetual (can't be kicked out really, unless they are liquidated after an insolvency event or they do not fulfil their assigned fixtures without a damn good excuse.) 

Whereas the 2 clubs not holding membership (Toulouse/ catalans) will not have a perpetual agreement, could be 10 years, 25 years etc but will be limited terms with renewal options and do not have a say (part ownership) 

Toronto was the 3rd club on a Particpation agreement (non RFL member) however that agreement has been terminated (null & void) probably because they are not fulfilling fixtures which they promised they would as part of th agreement. 

However, there seems to be a small window open for someone to take over the TWP and sign a new participation agreement on similar terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFL are very biased with membership, a Widnes or a Bradford go bust, they will sign up a new full member under that banner / brand no questions asked......A Oxford or a Gloucester withdraw from fixtures, that's the definate end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

The RFL are very biased with membership, a Widnes or a Bradford go bust, they will sign up a new full member under that banner / brand no questions asked......A Oxford or a Gloucester withdraw from fixtures, that's the definate end. 

Widnes and Bradford wanted to carry on. Oxford and the All Golds made it clear they wanted to pull out. 

Share this post


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

Yes, it's entirely the fault of everyone except the Toronto management...

There's plenty of blame to go around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Argyle has put in well in excess of £10m if reports are to be believed, central funding up to now they'd have gotten less than £3m back. Even with the funding the problems would exist. The central funding wouldn't even cover SBW's wages, it's time to stop using that as an excuse for Argyles failure to put competent administrators in charge of spending his money.

 

Well put even with central funding the clubs spending was never sustainable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Widnes and Bradford wanted to carry on. Oxford and the All Golds made it clear they wanted to pull out. 

Carry on? A non existent entity can't carry on. It's impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Themusician_2 said:

Well put even with central funding the clubs spending was never sustainable.

It was with a true billionaire who is committed to covering the shortfall forever and a day. Argyles wealth / commitment were the doubt all along. Too good to be true for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Carry on? A non existent entity can't carry on. It's impossible. 

Both wanted to continue playing, even under a slightly different guise, Oxford and All Golds didn’t at all. 

Share this post


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

So is there any prospective buyers left then? 

What is there to actually buy ? They have a brand name and a mountain of financial liabilities. This is a "buy it for £1" scenario and take on the liabilities. Not very appealing really.

  • Thanks 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

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...