Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

My God you are starting to sound desperate...pulling at any and all straws.  Relax, its going to play itself out...wait for Friday.  Its all going to be Okay...its all going to work out.  Prepare yourself mentally though so it doesn't come as a complete shocker.

It's a serious point, chief. The Super League season was rescheduled bottom-heavy for when crowds were due back next month. There's also the almost certain lack of fans at the play-offs and Grand Final, which along with Magic Weekend is worth around £2m in ticket sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Without a doubt, I have seen Phil Gould who is a mouth piece for the NRL these days say unequivocally and unprompted the NRL needs a strong Super League. V`landy`s, Gould, Abdo, Bennet et.al. no doubt have a grand vision for League and SL will be part of it. Please don` t take that as being patronising.

The Private Equity valuation of the NRL was released yesterday $3.1 b and they are talking about selling a 20% stake, now there has been chatter about buying a stake in SL. Don`t think it will happen yet, I don`t think they are ready, too much to sort out here after twenty years of sleepwalking while the bloody afl got under our guard. The NRL has got issues to deal with as well.

Nothing to do with sympathy Harry, its business, we`ve got a kick-ar$e product we want to take to the world, toes are going to get trodden on.

P.S. Had a letter published in the LoveRugbyLeague mailbox today, you never did give me your opinion.

 

 

For the forseeable future it could be that (if re-admitted) Toronto will play all their fixtures in the England, what would be the difference in the NRL having a Toronto representative club playing in Australia in the NRL?

If subjected to the NRL cap surely the riches we are advised are at the disposal of Toronto could procure a competitive team, then when the time comes and they can play back home in Canada travel and subsitance costs would not be a problem for the super rich NRL clubs, maybe the present NRL club's would have to give up 1/16th of their funding to accomodate Toronto but that shouldn't pose a problem, would it?

I can understand the NRL wanting a strong SL but surely if they took Toronto under their wing so to speak, and relieve SL clubs of the financial burden it could be promoted so much more effectively by the NRL in the future.

That is if as I say the NRL are not just viewing from afar and would be prepared to have some direct involvement instead of just generating noises.

Just saying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

It's a serious point, chief. The Super League season was rescheduled bottom-heavy for when crowds were due back next month. There's also the almost certain lack of fans at the play-offs and Grand Final, which along with Magic Weekend is worth around £2m in ticket sales.

Its all going to be Okay...its all going to work out in the end.  There is great change coming with Toronto in or out....its all in a state of flux.  Better to go with Toronto so SL can hedge its bets. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

I can't believe people do not realise that as far as LiVolsi is concerned it is SL or he walks, but what people do realise is that LiVolsi is playing a game with people's livelihood being all the player's and creditors that are owed money, quite simply he is passing the blame to the RL/SL of them not getting payed if TWP are rejected.

The simplest solution and probably the most cost effective as the land lies at the moment for SL clubs is to reject Toronto and gaurentee the players who have not been payed some compensation payed through the central funding be it 50, 75 or 100%. Up to their SC wage level. Marque players would be paid what is the % owed of 150K. So I would estimate that at the full cap level of 2.1M for saleries owed less the months already payed it would cost the SL clubs in the region of 120K each at 100% cost.

In the podcast with Brian Nobel he stated that the travel and subsistance for visiting teams cost Toronto 850K that would be 77K per club, add in the funding Toronto are demanding thats another 180K so each club are 250Kish down by readmitting Toronto.

So what do Toronto do that will increase SL clubs revenue by 250K per season at present? Anyone please, minus a TV deal is it Zilch? 

Toronto sympathisers have been 'playing' the Covid card ever since they stood back from the fixtures, but the situation with Covid is it has impacted on all the SL clubs also, they have already had a reduction on the Sky funding which is I believe 280K, so add that to the 250K Toronto would cost each club, it doesn't take much working out that recusing Toronto is the most cost effective option.

Relax Harry...you are getting worked up again....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Without a doubt, I have seen Phil Gould who is a mouth piece for the NRL these days say unequivocally and unprompted the NRL needs a strong Super League. V`landy`s, Gould, Abdo, Bennet et.al. no doubt have a grand vision for League and SL will be part of it. Please don` t take that as being patronising.

The Private Equity valuation of the NRL was released yesterday $3.1 b and they are talking about selling a 20% stake, now there has been chatter about buying a stake in SL. Don`t think it will happen yet, I don`t think they are ready, too much to sort out here after twenty years of sleepwalking while the bloody afl got under our guard. The NRL has got issues to deal with as well.

Nothing to do with sympathy Harry, its business, we`ve got a kick-ar$e product we want to take to the world, toes are going to get trodden on.

P.S. Had a letter published in the LoveRugbyLeague mailbox today, you never did give me your opinion.

 

 

How likely is that the NRL would invest in Super League instead of, say, property (stadia) in Sydney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

When is a decision due to be made? 

Friday...that is why the tension is increasing on here and the Anti-Wolfpack attacks are increasing in number and voracity.  The stress is hard for some to endure so, being creatures of habit, they revert back to the old Wolfpack bashing routine to reduce their anxieties.  I worry for them.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robin Evans said:

No-one

Go with 11

Then 10, then 9 and so on....keep going to the lowest common denominator...a recipe to get to zero or nothing.   

Time to change the tune and CRANK IT UP...12 is higher than 11!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

Edited by Big Picture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Then 10, then 9 and so on....keep going to the lowest common denominator...a recipe to get to zero or nothing.   

Time to change the tune and CRANK IT UP...12 is higher than 11!

If it has to be twelve give it toulouse then back to p&r.... assuming twp aren't offered a place or find the offer unattractive..... or their re-inclusion is not in the best interests of the game.

All that is irrelevant if twp and sl can find accordance and/or it is in the best interests of the game to have them in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

BBC's coverage of NFL always cuts back to the BBC studio whenever the feed they get from the US goes to an Ad break.

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

can't believe people do not realise that as far as LiVolsi is concerned it is SL or he walks, but what people do realise is that LiVolsi is playing a game with people's livelihood being all the player's and creditors that are owed money, quite simply he is passing the blame to the RL/SL of them not getting payed if TWP are rejected.

Tbf H you'd know more than I would about unscrupulous owners who'd pulled out midseason and used threats of non paying debts to get things through.

But anyway, LiVolsi isn't the owner of the club yet, effectively its in RFL limbo-administration. He has suggested he wants to lead an ownership group takeover, pay all debts to creditors save the largest of those, Argyle, who has written off his investment, submitted proposals for that, on the condition the club keeps its place in Super League for 2021. If he doesn't get that he's got no problem walking away, as he was never actually the owner. That's the chip he holds in trade for the 12th super league spot.

If he turned around and paid players now, before his ownership had even been confirmed, let alone Toronto's league place, he'd be making his position immeasurably weaker for no reason. A bit like if the UK gave the EU a load of money "in good faith" before even agreeing that a deal will even be made! It would be stupid in both cases I'm sure you'll agree.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

If you get the free version of NFL game pass you can watch edited down highlights of every game for free.

There's different options including highlights of every game of the weekend condensed into one hour..........or a full game condensed into 40 minutes without any stoppages.

If also doesn't display any scores so you can just watch everything delayed without knowing the scores which is decent considering a lot of the games are overnight here in the UK.

I watch pretty much all the NFL and hardly ever watch it live.

  • Thanks 1

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

As I originally said, they were prepared to stand the losses to secure better TV rights in the long term. But RL can’t afford to stand such losses. I’m sure there’s lots of things the RFL and SL would like to do in a perfect world but unfortunately in the real world they need to be paid for. I read lots on here from people like you who tell us what the game should be doing. I’ve yet to read anyone with a solution of where the money comes from to do it.

  • Like 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. 

This is exactly why I don't think RL is such an "obvious" or "natural" attraction to American viewers as some make it out to be. For those who are used to AF, RU is fast and flowing. The true American football "nerds" who are very into the coaches strategies, details of line-play (it isn't just fat boys smashing into each other), blocking schemes etc. could find a lot to like about the technical details of the scrum and breakdown. I find there there are a lot more similarities there, than a superficial 6 tackles=4 downs. "10 man rugby" is very similar to your old "3 yards and cloud of dust" football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RobertAM said:

and, in my opinion, US football is a far inferior product to topnotch RL, heck I'd watch L1 and Ch before NFL  -the constant stop/start and mucking about makes RU look quick and flowing in comparison. Do like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders though..best part of the spectacle. Lament the loss of Lingerie Football League..now that was a winner!

I was explaining to my son the other day about the American Restaurant  Chain ` Hooters` or should that be ` hOOters` he was stunned, funny it only took off in Queensland.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

This is exactly why I don't think RL is such an "obvious" or "natural" attraction to American viewers as some make it out to be. For those who are used to AF, RU is fast and flowing. The true American football "nerds" who are very into the coaches strategies, details of line-play (it isn't just fat boys smashing into each other), blocking schemes etc. could find a lot to like about the technical details of the scrum and breakdown. I find there there are a lot more similarities there, than a superficial 6 tackles=4 downs. "10 man rugby" is very similar to your old "3 yards and cloud of dust" football.

NFL and union have similarities in that you tend to have different body types for different roles in the team.  This translates well into schools as there's a job/position for the different sized kids to play in PE.

RL is far less specialist...... you just need to be super fit which doesn't translate too well for people that aren't

england_identity2.jpg1921_button.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf H you'd know more than I would about unscrupulous owners who'd pulled out midseason and used threats of non paying debts to get things through.

But anyway, LiVolsi isn't the owner of the club yet, effectively its in RFL limbo-administration. He has suggested he wants to lead an ownership group takeover, pay all debts to creditors save the largest of those, Argyle, who has written off his investment, submitted proposals for that, on the condition the club keeps its place in Super League for 2021. If he doesn't get that he's got no problem walking away, as he was never actually the owner. That's the chip he holds in trade for the 12th super league spot.

If he turned around and paid players now, before his ownership had even been confirmed, let alone Toronto's league place, he'd be making his position immeasurably weaker for no reason. A bit like if the UK gave the EU a load of money "in good faith" before even agreeing that a deal will even be made! It would be stupid in both cases I'm sure you'll agree.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many here don't get that. You have to actually buy the house before you spend the money to fix it up.

As for Harry's idea that SL reject TWP and cover its debts collectively, if SL were going to do that they'd have done it already and made repayment a condition of anybody seeking to then buy the club.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

How likely is that the NRL would invest in Super League instead of, say, property (stadia) in Sydney.

Yes ,they are dead keen on income generating assets but I think they will leave the stadiums to the State Gov`t, I think they missed the boat on that one. The comparisons are always made with the afl who own a stadium near the heart of the city which they can rent out for concerts, cricket etc.  Those stadiums in N.S.W are already owned by the State Gov`t.  15 000-20 000 seat stadiums in the suburbs of Sydney might find it hard to find other tenants than League. So not much return. V`landy`s is arguing that since the State G. has backed down on redeveloping the 80 000 Olympic Stadium($810m) they owe it to the League to build two or three  15-20 000 seaters instead or the GF goes to Brisbane.

I have heard it said over here that here is a belief in RL HQ that SL is undervalued. I figure they see it as a complete Rugby League package complementing each other. Proper Club Championships, International Schedules. Something big to offer a broadcaster.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And in that report we read, "That’s going to change quickly, Waller [that's Mark Waller, the NFL’s head of international development at the time] said. By continuing to play games in London — and making them free to watch via the BBC — the NFL has succeeded in slowly building a fan base. Half of the fans who went to a game at Wembley last year had been to a previous football game, and one-third bought tickets to the full series.

"With enough fans, Waller said, 'media values go up, your sponsor values go up and the commercial side of the arrangement reaches scale.' As it is, the price of the U.K. media rights for the NFL has already doubled since the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins at Wembley in 2007, and Waller said they will be more valuable when they come up for bid again. The BBC owns the rights to the London games and the Super Bowl for the next two years; Sky Sports will air the NFL’s U.S. games in the U.K. through 2019."

So they were losing money on the series back in 2016, since which time they have sold their UK rights to Sky for more money and then renewed them for more money again.  The series being profitable for them is just a matter of time if isn't profitable for them already.

It's interesting that the matches were on the BBC initially.  Does anyone know what they showed in the places where the North American broadcasters were showing commercials?

Most tellingly over here is that those games are streamed on Amazon. It's the way of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I have heard it said over here that here is a belief in RL HQ that SL is undervalued. I figure they see it as a complete Rugby League package complementing each other. Proper Club Championships, International Schedules. Something big to offer a broadcaster.

It would certainly fill a hole in the Fox League schedules in the Aussie summer. Would mean a shift back to winter rugby here though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

If it has to be twelve give it toulouse then back to p&r.... assuming twp aren't offered a place or find the offer unattractive..... or their re-inclusion is not in the best interests of the game.

All that is irrelevant if twp and sl can find accordance and/or it is in the best interests of the game to have them in.

Minus selecting the candidate to enter SL on the field of play, I would sooner they turned cards over or any other game of chance other than just favouring one team. 

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...