Jump to content
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I'd be up for letting them back in with Ottowa, free from relegation (with player quotas), tell them they get whatever money they can from a Canadian TV deal and build from there. 

It may not be the superstar splash they wanted and my worry would be that Toronto fans wouldn't enjoy watching their team get pumped for the first few years but a humbled (but still included) Toronto would be good for the sport.

What would be better for the league, a competitive team or one struggling due to having different roster rules than everyone else? If Toronto is in for the benefits they bring commercially,  they need to be competitive. Toronto fans are fine with losing,  but they wouldn't be fine with being treated unfairly.

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

 I don't think you have a cat in hell's chance of getting any money from the TV deal in the UK, purely down to Covid (and I think Toronto would need to explain how they actually add to that pie to take a slice from it)

By making up 1/12 of fixtures in the schedule and 1/12 of the broadcast content, they are entitled to 1/12 of the payment for those broadcast rights. No other justification needed.

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

I guess I would be called an expansionist on this forum as I would still want Toronto in but I am prepared to treat them differently with certain privileges (no relegation for you and Ottowa) but certain demands (you have a minimum number of Canadian or NA players and no, there's no exceptions). 

It the league truly wanted Canadian talent to be developed, all teams would need to have a minimum number of Canadian players. Otherwise they are hindering one teams competitiveness unfairly. More players would be developed that way too,and fairly.

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ottowa 

*Ottawa

...Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SL17 said:

I never spell it wrong.. But that’s for a reason.

So are you gonna make me ask or are you just going to come out with it....please elucidate.

Share this post


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

So are you gonna make me ask or are you just going to come out with it....please elucidate.

I don’t see a reason to explain. You of all people should see what’s happening around you.

Thats the way to go..Unless you want a circus back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SL17 said:

I don’t see a reason to explain. You of all people should see what’s happening around you.

Thats the way to go..Unless you want a circus back.

It will play itself out...as in all things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

It will play itself out...as in all things...

Good luck. You may get the backing of SL! But that backing (I don’t agree with) will be  based on a strict reprimand from the RFL.
 

SL simply pass the buck.

Basically SL don’t have to make the decision. The points reduction will favour them.

You really need to take TWP back to the Championship. Then take SL on again.

Edited by SL17

Share this post


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

What would be better for the league, a competitive team or one struggling due to having different roster rules than everyone else? If Toronto is in for the benefits they bring commercially,  they need to be competitive. Toronto fans are fine with losing,  but they wouldn't be fine with being treated unfairly.

By making up 1/12 of fixtures in the schedule and 1/12 of the broadcast content, they are entitled to 1/12 of the payment for those broadcast rights. No other justification needed.

It the league truly wanted Canadian talent to be developed, all teams would need to have a minimum number of Canadian players. Otherwise they are hindering one teams competitiveness unfairly. More players would be developed that way too,and fairly.

*Ottawa

...Better?

Yep, let's take them in turn.  You've omitted the point I made that Toronto, on their own, are not bringing commercial benefits to the league. The onus is on Toronto to demonstrate that they directly lead to an increase in subscriptions to Sky , the UK based broadcaster from which Super League's money pot comes from. Toronto can't provide that evidence... because there isn't any. 

On their own, they cannot get a North American TV deal. That would only be possible with another team from Canada, hence where Ottawa come in. So we need to square the circle that Toronto on their own generate no TV income in the native market and would only do so if we admitted another Canadian team. However, no TV company is going to do that unless they have a guarantee that both sides will remain in Super League, which we can't do unless we ringfence you. So we have to treat you differently by giving you a benefit that UK based clubs won't have if we really want expansion to succeed. 

Knowing that you are guaranteed to be in the tournament year in year out grants you significant benefits in terms of player attraction as they can guarantee that whatever happens, they will get that 2 year or 3 year contact paid (unlike, well, now...) and allows the club to build long term. 

How is that fair to UK teams? You can offer players contracts in the knowledge they are guaranteed whereas a Wakefield, Hull KR (who way well be competing in a similar player pool) can't as they would have the risk of relegation. I wouldn't be putting you in the league for your commercial benefits now, but for the long term expansion of the player pool and growth of the game. So it would be a compromise. You get the security but you are also forced to have a minimum of say 5 Canadians in your 17 man team selection.

That way, you can be competitive in the long term whilst providing security to any potential Canadian broadcaster that for 3 / 5 or however long they signed the contract to show you and Ottawa, their investment is safe and you are incentivised if you want to go from being a good team to a great one. Canada has a population of 1.76 million men aged 18-24, I'm sure you can find 1 starter and some impact players in that. 

So you are treated differently (in my hypothetical governance) because you are different, as your club is unviable below SL and therefore you must be incubated. Indeed the potential new owner Carlo has said "It's Super League or bust". 

'Fair' would be telling you to p*ss off as you just failed to complete a season (ok, could be understandable with Covid but not the fact you owed players wages). So you would drop into the Championship and then, Toronto is done. I'm sure there's plenty on this forum who would be glad to see this happen, I am not one of those people but this needs to be done in a way that understands the realities. 

Therefore, giving you (Toronto and Ottawa) the security but also the responsibility to grow the game in Canada is a fair compromise. English clubs are responsible for growing the player pool here. I would also offer the same deal to a second French club to make a 14 team league. 

And no, I don't buy for a second that because you make up 1/12 of broadcast content you get a 12th of a UK based deal. Especially when, as mentioned, you bring nothing into that pot. Plus, this isn't a NA franchise system and even in the elite association football competition at European level, clubs receive a tv pot that is based on how much their native market brings in.Many fans of other clubs would argue that it is fair that you bring in nothing, so you get nothing.

Overall, I do want to see a competitive and thriving Canadian couple in Super League, along with French sides but it has to be done for the long term. I think my way would offer Canada's long term potential to be reached in a way that is 'fair' to everyone. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yep, let's take them in turn.  You've omitted the point I made that Toronto, on their own, are not bringing commercial benefits to the league. The onus is on Toronto to demonstrate that they directly lead to an increase in subscriptions to Sky , the UK based broadcaster from which Super League's money pot comes from. Toronto can't provide that evidence... because there isn't any. 

On their own, they cannot get a North American TV deal. That would only be possible with another team from Canada, hence where Ottawa come in. So we need to square the circle that Toronto on their own generate no TV income in the native market and would only do so if we admitted another Canadian team. However, no TV company is going to do that unless they have a guarantee that both sides will remain in Super League, which we can't do unless we ringfence you. So we have to treat you differently by giving you a benefit that UK based clubs won't have if we really want expansion to succeed. 

Knowing that you are guaranteed to be in the tournament year in year out grants you significant benefits in terms of player attraction as they can guarantee that whatever happens, they will get that 2 year or 3 year contact paid (unlike, well, now...) and allows the club to build long term. 

How is that fair to UK teams? You can offer players contracts in the knowledge they are guaranteed whereas a Wakefield, Hull KR (who way well be competing in a similar player pool) can't as they would have the risk of relegation. I wouldn't be putting you in the league for your commercial benefits now, but for the long term expansion of the player pool and growth of the game. So it would be a compromise. You get the security but you are also forced to have a minimum of say 5 Canadians in your 17 man team selection.

That way, you can be competitive in the long term whilst providing security to any potential Canadian broadcaster that for 3 / 5 or however long they signed the contract to show you and Ottawa, their investment is safe and you are incentivised if you want to go from being a good team to a great one. Canada has a population of 1.76 million men aged 18-24, I'm sure you can find 1 starter and some impact players in that. 

So you are treated differently (in my hypothetical governance) because you are different, as your club is unviable below SL and therefore you must be incubated. Indeed the potential new owner Carlo has said "It's Super League or bust". 

'Fair' would be telling you to p*ss off as you just failed to complete a season (ok, could be understandable with Covid but not the fact you owed players wages). So you would drop into the Championship and then, Toronto is done. I'm sure there's plenty on this forum who would be glad to see this happen, I am not one of those people but this needs to be done in a way that understands the realities. 

Therefore, giving you (Toronto and Ottawa) the security but also the responsibility to grow the game in Canada is a fair compromise. English clubs are responsible for growing the player pool here. I would also offer the same deal to a second French club to make a 14 team league. 

And no, I don't buy for a second that because you make up 1/12 of broadcast content you get a 12th of a UK based deal. Especially when, as mentioned, you bring nothing into that pot. Plus, this isn't a NA franchise system and even in the elite association football competition at European level, clubs receive a tv pot that is based on how much their native market brings in.Many fans of other clubs would argue that it is fair that you bring in nothing, so you get nothing.

Overall, I do want to see a competitive and thriving Canadian couple in Super League, along with French sides but it has to be done for the long term. I think my way would offer Canada's long term potential to be reached in a way that is 'fair' to everyone. 

I think this is a pretty good post tbh.  I don't think it's reasonable to have a bunch of Canadians playing in SL right away but I think it behoves TWP and Ottawa to work with the Ontario Rugby League to develop local competition.

TWP and Ottawa should each jointly fund a few amateur clubs in their respective areas.  This could actually be quite easy to achieve and all it would take would be giving money to existing Rugby sides in the area in exchange for them running a League side alongside their existing XVs side. 

They could hire a development officer who could manage these programs for them.  It wouldn't be an exhaustive expense (not when compared to paying players like SBW $$$millions per year) and could be targeted primarily at infrastructure and resources (bag of balls, sets of jerseys, referee courses, etc).  They could also throw some money at some of the Rugby fields in the towns (Fletchers and Twin Elm could both use it).  

You would get the clubs onside quickly by doing this and would get access to the most important resource, players.

With a healthy base of clubs, you could now start an academy side that could play in the AMNRL and represent all of Ontario, you could also have an Academy side play in England as well.

I would make both these academies joint efforts and they would be supported by both clubs.  The club in England could be called Canada Selects XV and would put the best talent (i.e. the Quinn Ngawati's) in to a competition like League 1 or the NCL and they would be a non-promotable side but would purely exist to support development of Canadian talent.

This isn't even a unique concept in Canada.  The Canadian Rugby Union did something similar a few years ago, first through the Pacific Pride Program in BC and later through North Wales XV in partnership with the Welsh Rugby Union.  These sides didn't win all that much but they developed Canadian players in a high performance environment and did make the National Team a lot better.  They also helped those players secure top contracts in European clubs and many went on to quite successful professional careers (Jamie Cudmore, Jebb Sinclair, Morgan Williams, Dan Baugh, Ryan Smith to name but a few).  It was when Canada XV stopped doing this and pivoted towards Sevens (to secure Olympic funding) that the Canadian Rugby Union shot itself in the foot.  

 

Edit:

 

Final thoughts, We really need to stop getting others from NZ, Australia, Europe, etc telling us how to run our rugby programs over here.  The cultures and sport aren't the same and Rugby Canada did this for years to the detriment of our National team in XVs.  Get Canadians who know the landscape here and understand the Rugby community here to run and administer these programs.

Edited by CanadianRugger
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

How many club shops have you been in ? , Seriously ?

everytime i go to a stadium... so probably about 15...just in Rugby League in the UK is that ok with you? I've also been to baseball grounds in the US, NFL grounds in the US, Ice hockey stadiums around england and the US and canada, football grounds all around the world, RL grounds in AUS, RU grounds around the world.. how about you?

I have no idea on your point here.. unless you think the clubs are doing things perfectly..  which I dont think anybody would argue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TIWIT said:

Are you attempting to differentiate Super League from its member clubs? I know they are separate corporate entities but I'm also pretty darn sure each club has a vote regarding matters such as the terms whereby TWP enters the League. Isn't that what the 11 teams are deciding now?

Yes, because the comment I replied to was criticising clubs. You've then replied to my comment by writing about the treatment of TWP in the MPG. You claim have more information on that than I do, but no indication of what the CLUBS did to TWP in the MPG. Perhaps you could explain. The issue of whether TWP will pay its debts to fellow member clubs still remains unanswered. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TIWIT said:

Are you attempting to differentiate Super League from its member clubs? I know they are separate corporate entities but I'm also pretty darn sure each club has a vote regarding matters such as the terms whereby TWP enters the League. Isn't that what the 11 teams are deciding now?

Yes, because the comment I replied to was criticising clubs. You've then replied to my comment by writing about the treatment of TWP in the MPG. You claim have more information on that than I do, but no indication of what the CLUBS did to TWP in the MPG. Perhaps you could explain. The issue of whether TWP will pay its debts to fellow member clubs still remains unanswered. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheReaper said:

It the league truly wanted Canadian talent to be developed, all teams would need to have a minimum number of Canadian players. Otherwise they are hindering one teams competitiveness unfairly. More players would be developed that way too,and fairly.

How do they find enough players to do this,Toronto only managed one?, got to admit what a decent idea it would be to send some players over here on loan maybe to get some skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yep, let's take them in turn.  You've omitted the point I made that Toronto, on their own, are not bringing commercial benefits to the league. The onus is on Toronto to demonstrate that they directly lead to an increase in subscriptions to Sky , the UK based broadcaster from which Super League's money pot comes from. Toronto can't provide that evidence... because there isn't any. 

On their own, they cannot get a North American TV deal. That would only be possible with another team from Canada, hence where Ottawa come in. So we need to square the circle that Toronto on their own generate no TV income in the native market and would only do so if we admitted another Canadian team. However, no TV company is going to do that unless they have a guarantee that both sides will remain in Super League, which we can't do unless we ringfence you. So we have to treat you differently by giving you a benefit that UK based clubs won't have if we really want expansion to succeed. 

Knowing that you are guaranteed to be in the tournament year in year out grants you significant benefits in terms of player attraction as they can guarantee that whatever happens, they will get that 2 year or 3 year contact paid (unlike, well, now...) and allows the club to build long term. 

How is that fair to UK teams? You can offer players contracts in the knowledge they are guaranteed whereas a Wakefield, Hull KR (who way well be competing in a similar player pool) can't as they would have the risk of relegation. I wouldn't be putting you in the league for your commercial benefits now, but for the long term expansion of the player pool and growth of the game. So it would be a compromise. You get the security but you are also forced to have a minimum of say 5 Canadians in your 17 man team selection.

That way, you can be competitive in the long term whilst providing security to any potential Canadian broadcaster that for 3 / 5 or however long they signed the contract to show you and Ottawa, their investment is safe and you are incentivised if you want to go from being a good team to a great one. Canada has a population of 1.76 million men aged 18-24, I'm sure you can find 1 starter and some impact players in that. 

So you are treated differently (in my hypothetical governance) because you are different, as your club is unviable below SL and therefore you must be incubated. Indeed the potential new owner Carlo has said "It's Super League or bust". 

'Fair' would be telling you to p*ss off as you just failed to complete a season (ok, could be understandable with Covid but not the fact you owed players wages). So you would drop into the Championship and then, Toronto is done. I'm sure there's plenty on this forum who would be glad to see this happen, I am not one of those people but this needs to be done in a way that understands the realities. 

Therefore, giving you (Toronto and Ottawa) the security but also the responsibility to grow the game in Canada is a fair compromise. English clubs are responsible for growing the player pool here. I would also offer the same deal to a second French club to make a 14 team league. 

And no, I don't buy for a second that because you make up 1/12 of broadcast content you get a 12th of a UK based deal. Especially when, as mentioned, you bring nothing into that pot. Plus, this isn't a NA franchise system and even in the elite association football competition at European level, clubs receive a tv pot that is based on how much their native market brings in.Many fans of other clubs would argue that it is fair that you bring in nothing, so you get nothing.

Overall, I do want to see a competitive and thriving Canadian couple in Super League, along with French sides but it has to be done for the long term. I think my way would offer Canada's long term potential to be reached in a way that is 'fair' to everyone. 

I think you make a good case when you say 'it's not fair to other UK clubs" in safeguarding 3 teams from relegation, you are suggesting that a team could be relegated after finishing 4 places from the bottom, do you honestly think that would ever be accepted?

The division would be a shambles, one team would be bad enough under that respect in a 14 team league system as you suggest playing home and away results in 26 inconsequential fixtures each season - it simply doesn't matter if they lose - multiply that three that is 78 fixtures, also one team could manipulate results against the other teams by purposefully playing understrength teams, again multiply that by three and the opportunity for those under the threat of jeapordy to cry foul or suggest wrong doings, favouritism or devious practises have taken place would greatly increase.

I cannot for one moment understand how in a structure such as a divisional system there can be two different sets of rules for different clubs pertaining to jeopardy, it goes against all sporting ethics, and ridicules the term 'competitive league' if your in it to win it, it should also be the case that you can lose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RP London said:

everytime i go to a stadium... so probably about 15...just in Rugby League in the UK is that ok with you? I've also been to baseball grounds in the US, NFL grounds in the US, Ice hockey stadiums around england and the US and canada, football grounds all around the world, RL grounds in AUS, RU grounds around the world.. how about you?

I have no idea on your point here.. unless you think the clubs are doing things perfectly..  which I dont think anybody would argue.

 

 

You would not have seen Leigh's club shop then RP? it is not at the ground.

The ground albeit half a mile from the town centre does not have many 'footfall' visitors, hence the shop is located smack bang in the town centre - as close as the inner ring in the bullseye is in the middle of the dart board - next door to the bus station and the largest car park in the town in fact it is in the market hall, well stocked and well subscribed. On Matchday's not every game mind, there is also a 'mobile' in the main carpark at the stadiums entrance.

As a manufacturer yourself I should imagine you would applaud that buisness practise.

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You would not have seen Leigh's club shop then RP? it is not at the ground.

The ground albeit half a mile from the town centre does not have many 'footfall' visitors, hence the shop is located smack bang in the town centre - as close as the inner ring in the bullseye is in the middle of the dart board - next door to the bus station and the largest car park in the town in fact it is in the market hall, well stocked and well subscribed. On Matchday's not every game mind, there is also a 'mobile' in the main carpark at the stadiums entrance.

As a manufacturer yourself I should imagine you would applaud that buisness practise.

Just saying.

i've never been to Leigh full stop if my memory serves.. 

Thats a great set up and hope it works well. 

However, as pointed out to Gubrats i have already said some clubs do this well.. but some do not.. some do bits of it well (having a shop in the right place is only the start.. ) and some do not.. 

Across the board i dont think as a sport we do this well, i also dont think we make the most of what we CAN do.. and i have given examples of that.. I think i have been pretty good with the posts i have put in of even giving examples of what more could be done.. i've not gone into specific clubs or specific things because it is a general discussion starting with a grooming product.. but its not just about the merchandise you see in a club shop either, which i have said a few times.

If all the clubs are looking at is the club shop then that is very much part of the problem IMHO, look at what people outside the club shop may want to stock, look at what other companies could get your brand into for no effort on your part etc etc etc

Edited by RP London
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, PhilCarrington said:

Yes, because the comment I replied to was criticising clubs. You've then replied to my comment by writing about the treatment of TWP in the MPG. You claim have more information on that than I do, but no indication of what the CLUBS did to TWP in the MPG. Perhaps you could explain. The issue of whether TWP will pay its debts to fellow member clubs still remains unanswered. 

 

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Super League is a corporate entity comprised of its member clubs. It runs the game on a daily basis. 

But it is the member clubs who actually call the shots. It was they collectively who essential)y blackmailed TWP into accepting their terms at last year's MPG. It was they who divied up TWP's share of the TV money.

As for TWP paying its debts to the other clubs I confess I have no idea what you're referring to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Super League is a corporate entity comprised of its member clubs. It runs the game on a daily basis. 

But it is the member clubs who actually call the shots. It was they collectively who essential)y blackmailed TWP into accepting their terms at last year's MPG. It was they who divied up TWP's share of the TV money.

As for TWP paying its debts to the other clubs I confess I have no idea what you're referring to.

Last years MPG? You mean the Championship Final?

Money aside, TWP were looked upon quite favourably in the Championship play offs TIWIT, it was deemed that instead of the age old tradition of playing the final at a Neutral venue, it would be at the highest placed club.

I suggested at the time, that was because the smart money would be on TWP or Toulouse or both reaching the final, so considering that the Wembley final with Catalan was the worst ever attended the RFL were feared that a scheduled final at a venue -which would have been nominated prior to the competition, would have not only been a financial disaster it would have been a total embarrassment for the sport in the press so low would have been the attendance. 

Yes TWP and Toulouse are loved by some over here, until it means putting your hand in your pocket.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Last years MPG? You mean the Championship Final?

Money aside, TWP were looked upon quite favourably in the Championship play offs TIWIT, it was deemed that instead of the age old tradition of playing the final at a Neutral venue, it would be at the highest placed club.

I suggested at the time, that was because the smart money would be on TWP or Toulouse or both reaching the final, so considering that the Wembley final with Catalan was the worst ever attended the RFL were feared that a scheduled final at a venue -which would have been nominated prior to the competition, would have not only been a financial disaster it would have been a total embarrassment for the sport in the press so low would have been the attendance. 

Yes TWP and Toulouse are loved by some over here, until it means putting your hand in your pocket.

TWP weren't "looked on quite favourably" at all then, they were just the team who ended up as beneficiaries of the RFL being skint and hedging their bets? The 1930 Wembley final was the worst attended, agree the Catalan's one was poor though and quite probably the only one held there to lose money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you make a good case when you say 'it's not fair to other UK clubs" in safeguarding 3 teams from relegation, you are suggesting that a team could be relegated after finishing 4 places from the bottom, do you honestly think that would ever be accepted?

The division would be a shambles, one team would be bad enough under that respect in a 14 team league system as you suggest playing home and away results in 26 inconsequential fixtures each season - it simply doesn't matter if they lose - multiply that three that is 78 fixtures, also one team could manipulate results against the other teams by purposefully playing understrength teams, again multiply that by three and the opportunity for those under the threat of jeapordy to cry foul or suggest wrong doings, favouritism or devious practises have taken place would greatly increase.

I cannot for one moment understand how in a structure such as a divisional system there can be two different sets of rules for different clubs pertaining to jeopardy, it goes against all sporting ethics, and ridicules the term 'competitive league' if your in it to win it, it should also be the case that you can lose it.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I believe that if UK teams know that come the start of the season, the two lowest ranked UK based teams will be relegated and replaced by the Championship winner and Championship playoff winner, then it could work. Indeed we did it previously to protect Catalan when Cas went down if my memory serves me correctly. 

I do not believe these fixtures are inconsequential. Managers and players are professionals, who have professional desires and ambitions. They are playing for their jobs and places in the team next season, so I do not buy that Managers will be playing weaker teams or clubs will try to scheme to say relegate Salford for Leigh, I honestly don't think the expansion teams care less who goes down they are focused on their results. It does matter if they lose because owners will fire managers and players will be moved on or not renewed. I suspect that the protected clubs will actually try harder against the bigger teams, determined as they would be to put on a good show. 

I won't repeat my argument about why I am treating different clubs differently, I feel that was pretty well explained as me finding a balance between expansion and not damaging UK based clubs. No security, no Canadian or french tv deal, no new money in game, no expansion. It's that simple really. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Love the Wokeist victim culture going on here.

Ottawa Spelling Matters!

Ohhh.... what sad  times are these when some passing ruffians think that spelling no longer matters...there is a pestilence upon this forum...nothing is sacred...even though who use proper grammar and punctuation are under considerable stress when posting of the Toronto Wolfpack.... what is going on with the education system over there when grammar and proper sentence structure are thrown by the wayside in the name of anti-expansion!  

Edited by Kayakman
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Ohhh.... what sad  times are these when some passing ruffians think that spelling no longer matters...there is a pestilence upon this forum...nothing is sacred...even though who use proper grammar and punctuation are under considerable stress when posting of the Toronto Wolfpack.... what is going on with the education system over there when grammar and proper structure structure are thrown by the wayside in the name of anti-expansion!  

i'm assuming that ALL the mistakes in that post are deliberate Kman :kolobok_ph34r:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TIWIT said:

 

But it is the member clubs who actually call the shots. It was they collectively who essential)y blackmailed TWP into accepting their terms at last year's MPG. It was they who divied up TWP's share of the TV money.

 

You seem to be very adept at airbrushing history, or perhaps you are just very forgetful ?

It is well documented that SL were asking Toronto for information for months in order to make a decision about admitting them should they win the play offs. It is also public knowledge and on record that Toronto failed repeatedly to provide much of the requested info and what they did actually provide was sketchy at best. 

So in the end SL made an offer of entry that was conditional as they had not received anything from Toronto to allow them to consider an unconditional entry.

But apparently once again it is everyone’s fault but Toronto’s !

  • Thanks 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


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

You seem to be very adept at airbrushing history, or perhaps you are just very forgetful ?

It is well documented that SL were asking Toronto for information for months in order to make a decision about admitting them should they win the play offs. It is also public knowledge and on record that Toronto failed repeatedly to provide much of the requested info and what they did actually provide was sketchy at best. 

So in the end SL made an offer of entry that was conditional as they had not received anything from Toronto to allow them to consider an unconditional entry.

But apparently once again it is everyone’s fault but Toronto’s !

You and I have such different memories of these events that there is little point in attempting to debate them. It will simply bog down to "A/not A". It's not worth the time and effort because clearly we're never going to agree.

Blackmail is NOT negotiation however.

 

Share this post


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

You and I have such different memories of these events that there is little point in attempting to debate them. It will simply bog down to "A/not A". It's not worth the time and effort because clearly we're never going to agree.

Blackmail is NOT negotiation however.

 

A take-it-or-leave-it deal is not blackmail.

You really should stop throwing accusations of blackmail around tbh.

  • Like 4

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...