Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts


5 hours ago, yipyee said:

Ha for a one eyed view of an answer?

So go to BT and get more money or stay on sky for less but more people watch,

With that attitude we should be on bbc then as there willl be higher viewers.

 

So 2 replys , plus me is one eyed ? , Thank god you're not negotiating with those maths skills 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mebbe this is a "duh, yes!" answer but if Toulouse Olympique get promoted (top o the table when things stopped) do they get a full share of SKY money? would they be full SL members? i think Catalans are on an invite..correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

Mebbe this is a "duh, yes!" answer but if Toulouse Olympique get promoted (top o the table when things stopped) do they get a full share of SKY money? would they be full SL members? i think Catalans are on an invite..correct?

Sadly Robert, this sort of decision probably rests with 5-6 struggling teams who float around the mid to lower end of SL. They wouldn't want it any other way.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, yipyee said:

I am aware koukash who is a sucsessful buisnessman laughed at the proposal and said whats plan B and we should reject the first offer, 

The response was we dont negotiate we just accept.

We then lost an asset to the game.

I am amazed that it seems only failed businessmen have ended up owning RL clubs ? 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

At no point did I state anything about SL clubs refusing the SKY deal.  That was you as usual trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

My point was the fact that we have 2 groups of clubs in SL. One group of clubs see SKY money as a way to keep themselves going so have little desire to try something different as it may not be beneficial to them whilst the other group have more financial muscle so may consider different approaches in an effort to be more attractive to investors and TV.

The latter view could increase TV revenue in the long term whilst the prior view IMHO about just seeing survival as a victory just retains the status quo and in the long term could lead to a further reduction in SKY money and leads to the scenario that you paint in your final paragraph.

But as I pointed out , with the potential to lose half of SL , then there is no SL , just out of interest how long would the NRL last without broadcasting income ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

 

I can just vision the 11 SL club chairmen sat around a large circular table.  A rep from SKY enters the room and plonks the annual pot of TV distribution money in the middle of the table.  You have some SL Chairmen who look at the money and think ‘We could do better’ and you have some SL Chairmen who are positively slobbering thinking ‘This will keep the club going for one more year’.  

 

 

So if this isn't you suggesting club owners refusing the SKY deal , what is it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a social media campaign from the players at the moment about letting TWP in so they don't lose their job. Whilst I can't blame them as individuals, it is clearly orchestrated and in bad taste tbh. 

I agree with McManus now on this that the bid needs to be looked at with clear heads. That means taking the emotion out of it and ultimately reviewing the proposal. There is a chance that this proposal will cost the SL comp £2.3m more than the previous agreement if central funding and expenses are funded by SL. That is a big shift, and the proposed owner will need to show serious plans for the thumbs up. 

I think there could be a middle ground of no central funding but no travel expenses paid by TWP in year 1, to central funding minus travel expenses in year 2, with full funding in year 3. 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Bit of a social media campaign from the players at the moment about letting TWP in so they don't lose their job. Whilst I can't blame them as individuals, it is clearly orchestrated and in bad taste tbh. 

I agree with McManus now on this that the bid needs to be looked at with clear heads. That means taking the emotion out of it and ultimately reviewing the proposal. There is a chance that this proposal will cost the SL comp £2.3m more than the previous agreement if central funding and expenses are funded by SL. That is a big shift, and the proposed owner will need to show serious plans for the thumbs up. 

I think there could be a middle ground of no central funding but no travel expenses paid by TWP in year 1, to central funding minus travel expenses in year 2, with full funding in year 3. 

I don't see your suggestion as totally ridiculous and if its where we end up I think it could be seen as a successful negotiation all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Bit of a social media campaign from the players at the moment about letting TWP in so they don't lose their job. Whilst I can't blame them as individuals, it is clearly orchestrated and in bad taste tbh. 

I agree with McManus now on this that the bid needs to be looked at with clear heads. That means taking the emotion out of it and ultimately reviewing the proposal. There is a chance that this proposal will cost the SL comp £2.3m more than the previous agreement if central funding and expenses are funded by SL. That is a big shift, and the proposed owner will need to show serious plans for the thumbs up. 

I think there could be a middle ground of no central funding but no travel expenses paid by TWP in year 1, to central funding minus travel expenses in year 2, with full funding in year 3. 

That's all fine and dandy Dave 

Until they get relegated next year 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I have a feeling they'll get binned. 

Im not saying if its the right or wrong thing to do.  I'd need much more info to make that call.

if they're history I will feel for those in Canada who have enjoyed the game and are now going to be spoon fed union.

Toronto shouldn’t come back. I can’t see them ever working without being treated as equals and partners working together with the 11 other clubs to grow Super League and rightly so, some of the others clubs will not be in favour of that as with P/R, it is about survival. 

I am truly amazed it has taken this long for the whoever is in charge to make the decision. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

That's all fine and dandy Dave 

Until they get relegated next year 🤔

That's on them. If they then come back up they move into yr2 of the agreement and so on. 

More than ever they need to prove what they can do, but there should also be a plan and I think this suggestion shows some compromise and goodwill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That's on them. If they then come back up they move into yr2 of the agreement and so on. 

More than ever they need to prove what they can do, but there should also be a plan and I think this suggestion shows some compromise and goodwill. 

And the plan for relegation ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...