The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[RP London]

If you were going to buy a car, you are not going to negotiate for a car you dont really want.. but if the price is way too high on one you do you may take the time to try and get that price down or understand why the price is higher than you first thought it would be.. 

My guess is that the presentation/business plan that TWP presented was missing some key elements but that its interesting to all parties. If it hadnt been then they would have just been told that. There must be something that is keeping them interested as well as something that is making them cautious. Both of these things I would say we all have, I am sure even the ardent TWP hater would see the positives they could bring, and even the most ardent TWP fan can see why people are cautious, especially now. 

I'll throw accusations of mismanagement at both SLE and the RFL as anyone else would because i think both organisations have massive failings but i think on this occasion its TWP or LiVolsi who has failed.. They should have made sure all the bases were covered and made a fantastic presentation covering both the positives and negatives and addressing both. However, it must have been good enough for them to be told to go away and come back with more information..

its almost like a pitch for business where you havent done a bad job but you have just missed the brief a little bit, you have come across as likeable and someone the prospective client wants to work with so they give you a second chance at pitching with a bit of clarification of the brief. If you came across as a tool or your costings were up the left then they wouldnt get the second pitch chance... Thats where i see this. 

For once I think SLE may have got it right, dont make a rash decision but ask for some more clarification. I would hope they fall on the side of TWP but if they dont this at least strikes me as due dilligence being done, equally if they do go with them they have checked everything and we have to trust them on that IMHO. 

[Tommygilf]

Obviously this is purely a Toronto issue and certainly not the same attitude espoused to anyone from outside our little Northern club for the past 100 years... as an aside "they don't play RL in Scotland", well clearly they might have, but for those travel expenses eh?

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Obviously this is purely a Toronto issue and certainly not the same attitude espoused to anyone from outside our little Northern club for the past 100 years... as an aside "they don't play RL in Scotland", well clearly they might have, but for those travel expenses eh?

Thanks for that, I was completely unaware of this.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Thanks for that, I was completely unaware of this.

I was too mate, it annoys me how its literally the same excuses every single time yet we pretend it a new thing l

[Robin Evans]

Didn't RL miss an Italian opportunity in the late 50s?

Weren't Treviso a league team?

Somewhere in what's left of my memory I seem to recall Italy was also neglected.

 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Didn't RL miss an Italian opportunity in the late 50s?

Weren't Treviso a league team?

Somewhere in what's left of my memory I seem to recall Italy was also neglected.

 

And Wales, and the Coventry NU side, and the South West of England, it goes on

RL never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[gingerjon]

51 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I was too mate, it annoys me how its literally the same excuses every single time yet we pretend it a new thing l

Hunslet (maybe others) voted against London Skolars because London is an awfully long way from Leeds and, well, northern game for northern people.

[lucky 7]

23 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Elstone is perfectly correct in wanting LiVolsi to dot all i's and cross all the t's, I for one would not have give him another chance. 

The opportunity that LiVolsi was given to make a presentation of sufficient quality to entice the SL bosses to re-admit Toronto into their division was the most important one he had to produce and deliver, given that he approched it by his own admission 'half heartedly" speaks volumes of the man's demeanour, manner and attitude that he is used to getting his own way, I would be very apprehensive of this guy going forward.

He might be, but how much money has he brought to game since his tenure started?

Has he even brought enough money in to cover his wages?

[Robin Evans]

9 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

He might be, but how much money has he brought to game since his tenure started?

Has he even brought enough money in to cover his wages?

Different argument for a different thread

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Hunslet (maybe others) voted against London Skolars because London is an awfully long way from Leeds and, well, northern game for northern people.

This is why we need more clubs. Hunslet probably are a regional sized league club not a national one, but are in a national sized leagues because we've not got enough clubs to push the regional sized clubs down.

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

He might be, but how much money has he brought to game since his tenure started?

Has he even brought enough money in to cover his wages?

To be fair to him he will be slightly hamstrung by contracts already in place.. for example you cannot negotiate a new TV deal until the old one is coming up for renewal (ie now) or sponsorship deal etc.. He did a good job on the sponsorship if memory serves extending it for a year and getting growth in its value. He could perhaps have got some new supplemental deals but the main deal was good. I think you can only really judge "what he has brought" when he has the chance to bring it.. 

 

[lucky 7]

2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Different argument for a different thread

Didn't that thread get closed down?

[Robin Evans]

Just now, lucky 7 said:

Didn't that thread get closed down?

Aye it did.... 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is why we need more clubs. Hunslet probably are a regional sized league club not a national one, but are in a national sized leagues because we've not got enough clubs to push the regional sized clubs out.

too often the tail wags the dog in RL... if we can change that around it would be a massive step forward, it doesnt mean that the same decisions arent made but that they shouldnt be made by Hunslet they should be made by the RFL with a balanced view of preservation and development. 

[lucky 7]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

To be fair to him he will be slightly hamstrung by contracts already in place.. for example you cannot negotiate a new TV deal until the old one is coming up for renewal (ie now) or sponsorship deal etc.. He did a good job on the sponsorship if memory serves extending it for a year and getting growth in its value. He could perhaps have got some new supplemental deals but the main deal was good. I think you can only really judge "what he has brought" when he has the chance to bring it.. 

 

I thought one of his remits was to bring in more sponsorship as sponsorships and the value of them is on the slide in the game

[Tommygilf]

Just now, RP London said:

too often the tail wags the dog in RL... if we can change that around it would be a massive step forward, it doesnt mean that the same decisions arent made but that they shouldnt be made by Hunslet they should be made by the RFL with a balanced view of preservation and development. 

Indeed, but the RFL, by its very nature, is often ran by the clubs.

I just listened to the most recent Tony Collins podcast and it was eye opening how virtually every expansion attempt failed due to the existing rugby league community going against it, such as by buying up the best local players in Wales, or disliking the travel times to some clubs, or not offering support in terms of competitivity to new clubs.

The lack of strategy is utterly astounding.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

I thought one of his remits was to bring in more sponsorship as sponsorships and the value of them is on the slide in the game

well he rose the value of the betfred sponsorship when they extended so that seems to have gone ok.. 

Happy to criticise him as i'm not sure he is doing the best of jobs but on this one he seems to have done ok.. more supplemental sponsors could be added but i would suggest that his main remit now is getting every club and the organisation into 2021/2 safely.. 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, but the RFL, by its very nature, is often ran by the clubs.

I just listened to the most recent Tony Collins podcast and it was eye opening how virtually every expansion attempt failed due to the existing rugby league community going against it, such as by buying up the best local players in Wales, or disliking the travel times to some clubs, or not offering support in terms of competitivity to new clubs.

The lack of strategy is utterly astounding.

I've studied RL expansion since my Uni days (which finished in 2000) so know how bad it has been, and what has stopped it.. yes its always been run by the clubs and their self interests and that needs to end.. just because it always has does not mean it always should be.. thats the point i'm making.

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

I've studied RL expansion since my Uni days (which finished in 2000) so know how bad it has been, and what has stopped it.. yes its always been run by the clubs and their self interests and that needs to end.. just because it always has does not mean it always should be.. thats the point i'm making.

And this is why the readmission of Toronto is a pointless exercise. While it’s a new man signing of cheques, the game of Rugby League and it’s attitudes and beliefs have not changed and the vicious cycle of expansionism will keep going around till Toronto get lowered into the ground alongside PSG, Gateshead, Celtic Crusaders and a number of smaller lower league expansion trips. 

[Robin Evans]

10 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

And this is why the readmission of Toronto is a pointless exercise. While it’s a new man signing of cheques, the game of Rugby League and it’s attitudes and beliefs have not changed and the vicious cycle of expansionism will keep going around till Toronto get lowered into the ground alongside PSG, Gateshead, Celtic Crusaders and a number of smaller lower league expansion trips. 

Wasn't Leyton Samuels going awol the reason behind crusaders going ar se upperds?? I don't think you can attribute that to the RFL/SL. 

Similarly, why were the RFL/SL to blame for PSG's demise?

I suppose if you made an argument that they should have been funded directly by SL..... but that begs a whole host of other questions

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Wasn't Leyton Samuels going awol the reason behind crusaders going ar se upperds?? I don't think you can attribute that to the RFL/SL. 

Similarly, why were the RFL/SL to blame for PSG's demise?

I suppose if you made an argument that they should have been funded directly by SL..... but that begs a whole host of other questions

I’m not comparing anyone to any former expansion side, more that we’ve lost multiple through various reasons. 

[Hela Wigmen]

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is why we need more clubs. Hunslet probably are a regional sized league club not a national one, but are in a national sized leagues because we've not got enough clubs to push the regional sized clubs down.

Forcing clubs out because it is perceived that their face doesn’t fit is the most Rugby League thing possible. 

[Kayakman]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Obviously this is purely a Toronto issue and certainly not the same attitude espoused to anyone from outside our little Northern club for the past 100 years... as an aside "they don't play RL in Scotland", well clearly they might have, but for those travel expenses eh?

Just change the date and substitute 'Toronto' for 'Glasgow' and you have the conversation happening today...it really does highlight the lack of progress in RL over the years.   This is a problem and a challenge at the same time.

I'm sure the Wolfpack bid included some type of sponsorship/possible sponsorship money so that is why Elstone did not dismiss it out of hand.  After reading the article on Glasgow it sort of made me sad that RL in the Northern Hemisphere can't seem to overcome this obstacle to expansion...it requires a change in the current mindset.  Let us hope calmer heads prevail and we can avoid the obvious shortsighted errors of the past.  It appears another carrot will be missed by the stubborn old mule....and he ain't gettin any younger!

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Forcing clubs out because it is perceived that their face doesn’t fit is the most Rugby League thing possible. 

The "Rugby League Family!"... always makes me cringe when i hear that.. good at supporting each other in terms of injury etc but not very welcoming sometimes... Playing at South London you got to see the best and the worst of it from some of the northern teams we played against.. some very welcoming and really positive.. some not so much!

[Robin Evans]

3 hours ago, RP London said:

The "Rugby League Family!"... always makes me cringe when i hear that.. good at supporting each other in terms of injury etc but not very welcoming sometimes... Playing at South London you got to see the best and the worst of it from some of the northern teams we played against.. some very welcoming and really positive.. some not so much!

That includes the Lyndsay "dross".

However, last fourty years.... which clubs were forced out? Genuine question.