Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am devastated by todays decision.Obviously I think its wrong but I think it shows the narrow minded thinking of most super league clubs.I very much doubt the Wolfpack will ever be back as I don't se

Rugby League as a sport - fans, owners, administrators, the lot - gets what it deserves. There was an opportunity here, an owner who's spent £10m, a growing fanbase and a very attractive market,

To avoid the forum being swamped with dozens of individual threads about Toronto which generally all end up heading down the same rabbit hole eventually anyway, we're opening this general discussion t

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Doesn't matter what allegations are made. Happens all the time in sport, thats the way the cookie crumbles.

The only other alternative to my solution that would work is having a totally joined up anglo-french league system from the bottom up.

So dishonesty in a protected league does not matter, enough said if that is the way a cookie crumbles, I do not know what your long term employment ambitions are Tommy but with ypur attitude I would hot want to work for you.

Back to finance, who pays for your angli- french bottom up system.

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

So dishonesty in a protected league does not matter, enough said if that is the way a cookie crumbles, I do not know what your long term employment ambitions are Tommy but with ypur attitude I would hot want to work for you.

Back to finance, who pays for your angli- french bottom up system.

Harry I'm sure you're old enough to have seen plenty of sporting events and matches where dubiousness was accused. 99% of the time its nonsense and in any case focussing on your own shortcomings will always get you further than whinging about perceived injustices in games you couldn't affect.

I'm not being dishonest at all, I've been upfront completely with my view and put evidenced based responses up to back them. I've also not placed any strawmen up that have little basis in reality or imagined conspiracies.

I've no idea how it would be funded H, I think its nonsense because I believe in prioritising and consolidating strengths and have repeatedly explained how I'd do that, but its what you seem to want in your sporting purity obsession. Please tell me how you'd envisage your recently posted view that you'd have as many french teams in our league competing on the same basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Harry I'm sure you're old enough to have seen plenty of sporting events and matches where dubiousness was accused. 99% of the time its nonsense and in any case focussing on your own shortcomings will always get you further than whinging about perceived injustices in games you couldn't affect.

I'm not being dishonest at all, I've been upfront completely with my view and put evidenced based responses up to back them. I've also not placed any strawmen up that have little basis in reality or imagined conspiracies.

I've no idea how it would be funded H, I think its nonsense because I believe in prioritising and consolidating strengths and have repeatedly explained how I'd do that, but its what you seem to want in your sporting purity obsession. Please tell me how you'd envisage your recently posted view that you'd have as many french teams in our league competing on the same basis?

Please tell me in your opinion in the example I gave do you think that if any of the other 3 teams in last years relegation battle had been relegated it would just have been accepted.

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

Please tell me in your opinion in the example I gave do you think that if any of the other 3 teams in last years relegation battle had been relegated it would just have been accepted.

Yep, because they would have lost too many games, including to London. Everyone underestimated London, particularly the bottom teams who thought they would be miles away. Of course there would be some one-eyed, myopic fans who blamed the referees, the RFL, the weather and the baby jesus etc before they blamed their own teams ineptitude, but you get morons in all walks of life and at all clubs. What do you suggest they'd do, sue St Helens for being the best team and being able to rotate their squad to prioritise certain games?? Obviously, life would have gone on. 

I mean the obvious solution to your conundrum would be to remove the threat of relegation altogether, but I doubt you'd be in favour of that. 

As I've said before H, if you want sport purely for sports sake, you'll find far more enjoyment out of the NCL than any professional competition.

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

Well I'd say being realistic given we have 3 of the top ten richest football clubs in the world within that area 

How is what they are doing at another clubs expense ?

Only the removal of on field  and R is doing that 

As part of a wider package in itself its not ridiculous, but when its just that, its zero growth (indeed backwards in many aspects).

Because these clubs will stop the likes of your club coming up by making it as hard as possible for new teams to succeed to protect their status - they'll willingly sacrifice eachother though as we've seen with Widnes and Bradford. Equally at the top they'll vote to decrease the ability of the biggest clubs to drag the league forwards as they compete against the NRL and Rugby Union. The subsequent declining interest in the sport and lost monies are a result of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As part of a wider package in itself its not ridiculous, but when its just that, its zero growth (indeed backwards in many aspects).

Because these clubs will stop the likes of your club coming up by making it as hard as possible for new teams to succeed to protect their status - they'll willingly sacrifice eachother though as we've seen with Widnes and Bradford. Equally at the top they'll vote to decrease the ability of the biggest clubs to drag the league forwards as they compete against the NRL and Rugby Union. The subsequent declining interest in the sport and lost monies are a result of that.

So if he'd said we should become the biggest sport in the north of England , would be not have been ridiculed ?

How are they making it hard for Leigh ?

Surely his primary job is to protect his clubs status ? , Isn't that Gary's primary job ?

Both Widnes and especially Bradford's problems are nothing to do with Wakey

I assume you mean the salary cap ? , If he hasn't the money , then he is potentially restricting SLs potential to retain its players

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

So if he'd said we should become the biggest sport in the north of England , would be not have been ridiculed ?

How are they making it hard for Leigh ?

Surely his primary job is to protect his clubs status ? , Isn't that Gary's primary job ?

Both Widnes and especially Bradford's problems are nothing to do with Wakey

I assume you mean the salary cap ? , If he hasn't the money , then he is potentially restricting SLs potential to retain its players

Why the north of England limited focus would be my point. It demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to how the country let alone world works.

Pretending they have stadium plans that never materialise is a start.

His primary job should be making sure his club status is not under threat yes, but his approach to answering that is often lowest common denominator rather than growth. Eg. Come 11th or just above, spend less on training and gym facilities etc.

They got rid and didn't support them when they wanted and took money off them (Bradford incidentally like Toronto) in the process. No looking out for each of the little guys there was there?

And sign new players, which diminishes the competition in almost every metric.

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Remember London Broncos won 10 matches that must without doubt be the highest number ever for a team relegated from SL.

 

Paul

It was a conspiracy apparently and would have been complained about had they stayed up... I despair.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why the north of England limited focus would be my point. It demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to how the country let alone world works.

Pretending they have stadium plans that never materialise is a start.

His primary job should be making sure his club status is not under threat yes, but his approach to answering that is often lowest common denominator rather than growth. Eg. Come 11th or just above, spend less on training and gym facilities etc.

They got rid and didn't support them when they wanted and took money off them (Bradford incidentally like Toronto) in the process. No looking out for each of the little guys there was there?

And sign new players, which diminishes the competition in almost every metric.

We do need to be careful with this constant narrative of clubs taking money off clubs. I recall many clubs being supportive of Bradford's efforts, with donations and waiving of ticket share etc. being given to the Bulls during that period. 

Where we started to see funding not given was around new questionable owners. It appears to me that SL clubs are not fans of routing money to club owners with question marks over them. It is hard to argue against that view in both Bradford and Toronto's cases. 

Across sport we see a fair few shady ownership models, and I think the clubs take a cynical view of this. 

But the other interesting point is that this central funding narrative is often used to show backward thinking and being against expansion, but it has been used against heartland clubs too. And it would be naive to think clubs just have a chat and agree to shaft a club for their benefit, as let's be honest, their club could be next. 

Id rather the money was held back in Central pots, but I dont think it is as simple as some make out. 

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

We do need to be careful with this constant narrative of clubs taking money off clubs. I recall many clubs being supportive of Bradford's efforts, with donations and waiving of ticket share etc. being given to the Bulls during that period. 

Where we started to see funding not given was around new questionable owners. It appears to me that SL clubs are not fans of routing money to club owners with question marks over them. It is hard to argue against that view in both Bradford and Toronto's cases. 

Across sport we see a fair few shady ownership models, and I think the clubs take a cynical view of this. 

But the other interesting point is that this central funding narrative is often used to show backward thinking and being against expansion, but it has been used against heartland clubs too. And it would be naive to think clubs just have a chat and agree to shaft a club for their benefit, as let's be honest, their club could be next. 

Id rather the money was held back in Central pots, but I dont think it is as simple as some make out. 

I agree that central pots should be the route taken if money is being held back from a club.

I think the sport has a dangerously cannibalistic side to it (and has had it for decades) at the boardroom level which is driven by clubs with totally insecure positions living on the edge. As you say, there is a near constant fear that their club will be next and that speaks to the general financial insecurity of the sport. The solution to some is reductive, cost cutting and narrow focus - that's certainly a solution and might work but is arguably what has been mainly happening for the past 125 years and has left us where we are now.

Now what we see is that, for the sum of a couple of hundred thousand pounds at most, some clubs will be willing to vote for no Toronto and 11 teams next season. That they can be so cheaply bought should ring alarm bells as to the real weakness of the game.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree that central pots should be the route taken if money is being held back from a club.

I think the sport has a dangerously cannibalistic side to it (and has had it for decades) at the boardroom level which is driven by clubs with totally insecure positions living on the edge. As you say, there is a near constant fear that their club will be next and that speaks to the general financial insecurity of the sport. The solution to some is reductive, cost cutting and narrow focus - that's certainly a solution and might work but is arguably what has been mainly happening for the past 125 years and has left us where we are now.

Now what we see is that, for the sum of a couple of hundred thousand pounds at most, some clubs will be willing to vote for no Toronto and 11 teams next season. That they can be so cheaply bought should ring alarm bells as to the real weakness of the game.

But the problem here is that that is your spin about them voting out because of a couple of hundred grand. Maybe, they just genuinely don't think that TWP in SL is a good idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the problem here is that that is your spin about them voting out because of a couple of hundred grand. Maybe, they just genuinely don't think that TWP in SL is a good idea. 

I think if the SL clubs vote to refuse TWP's application and to run with 11 teams it would suggest that both of those reasons were the cause.

If the vote allows TWP to return but without central funds as before then the other 11 still get a share of the funds meant for club 12 so they would admit TWP and get the extra money. So a Yes to TWP and financial gain

If the vote is to decline the application and to promote a new club 12 then the clubs turn down TWP but don't get the extra money. So they don't believe in TWP but don't gain financially.

If the vote is to decline TWP and run an 11 team league then they each get a share of the money meant for club 12. So they don't believe in TWP and they get a financial gain. They may also remove relegation for 2021 in this scenario too and guarantee their own SL status and the finances that come with it.

If the clubs don't believe TWP is viable but aren't motivated to refuse the application by potential financial gain then they will say no to TWP but vote to have 12 teams in 2021 IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the problem here is that that is your spin about them voting out because of a couple of hundred grand. Maybe, they just genuinely don't think that TWP in SL is a good idea. 

@wiganermike laid it out perfectly I feel no need to add anything

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

I think if the SL clubs vote to refuse TWP's application and to run with 11 teams it would suggest that both of those reasons were the cause.

If the vote allows TWP to return but without central funds as before then the other 11 still get a share of the funds meant for club 12 so they would admit TWP and get the extra money. So a Yes to TWP and financial gain

If the vote is to decline the application and to promote a new club 12 then the clubs turn down TWP but don't get the extra money. So they don't believe in TWP but don't gain financially.

If the vote is to decline TWP and run an 11 team league then they each get a share of the money meant for club 12. So they don't believe in TWP and they get a financial gain. They may also remove relegation for 2021 in this scenario too and guarantee their own SL status and the finances that come with it.

If the clubs don't believe TWP is viable but aren't motivated to refuse the application by potential financial gain then they will say no to TWP but vote to have 12 teams in 2021 IMO.

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

No doubt the press releases following any vote to run with 11 teams in 2021 would carry the narrative that they (SLE) didn't feel it right and proper to select a 12th club when promotion couldn't be won on the pitch but we would all know the extra cash would have been what led to that outcome. Given the financial strain our clubs are under, particularly due to Covid, any attempt to access extra money is understandable but we cannot pretend that not having a 12th club in 2021 (if they decide to do that) would not be something that was done in order to access some extra cash. As I posted earlier though if TWP were club 12 and didn't get central funding then the other 11 clubs would still get their extra bit of cash.

I am in agreement with you in terms of what I would prefer to see happen though I do think that concerns over the business plan/viability of TWP in SL and over the level of commitment from Carlo LiVolsi to sustaining TWP going forward on the part of the other SL clubs will see the application turned down.

You may well be right in that had TWP withdrawn in April/May rather than after committing to the restart then they may have been looked on more favourably. That didn't happen though and they seem to have annoyed the various people that will decide what to do in response to their late withdrawal with the manner in which they did it. That the prospective new owner didn't put much effort or attention into his submission to re-enter won't have helped either. I don't follow RU but I doubt that the South African clubs behaved in as self defeating a manner as TWP did when withdrawing from their competition.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

What if TWP are told no they leave and along with Ottawa and New York they form a new North American-UK league.

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

No doubt the press releases following any vote to run with 11 teams in 2021 would carry the narrative that they (SLE) didn't feel it right and proper to select a 12th club when promotion couldn't be won on the pitch but we would all know the extra cash would have been what led to that outcome. Given the financial strain our clubs are under, particularly due to Covid, any attempt to access extra money is understandable but we cannot pretend that not having a 12th club in 2021 (if they decide to do that) would not be something that was done in order to access some extra cash. As I posted earlier though if TWP were club 12 and didn't get central funding then the other 11 clubs would still get their extra bit of cash.

I am in agreement with you in terms of what I would prefer to see happen though I do think that concerns over the business plan/viability of TWP in SL and over the level of commitment from Carlo LiVolsi to sustaining TWP going forward on the part of the other SL clubs will see the application turned down.

You may well be right in that had TWP withdrawn in April/May rather than after committing to the restart then they may have been looked on more favourably. That didn't happen though and they seem to have annoyed the various people that will decide what to do in response to their late withdrawal with the manner in which they did it. That the prospective new owner didn't put much effort or attention into his submission to re-enter won't have helped either. I don't follow RU but I doubt that the South African clubs behaved in as self defeating a manner as TWP did when withdrawing from their competition.

It would not shock me if the SL goes with a bubble season 11 or 12 teams in one location.

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

As they should have done for this current season 

For once having so many teams and stadiums in close proximity would be a good thing when it comes to creating a bubble. 

The problem is the length of the season. Players will not commit to 6 months in a bubble away from their families.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Just because more money is forthcoming on certain outcomes does not mean that the decision was made on that basis. 

I could see a vote No to TWP, and a vote to run with 11 as the Championships are not running so you avoid a selection process and return to 12 in 2022. I don't think it is fair to just dismiss that as a simple cash grab. 

But people will, and the reason is it is perfectly acceptable to bash the existing clubs to a degree that would see you branded all sorts if it was towards a new club. 

My personal preference is TWP in with reduced or no funding, second would be TWP out and get a 12th team in (for 6 games per week) - but I can understand if the game goes down the No and 11 teams route this year. 

It should also be remembered that the SL clubs are not the bad guys here. TWP were in SL and were even protected from relegation this year. I believe that had TWP (and even Catalans) stated that they wouldn't be able to commit to the restart then we would have adapted the season, just as Pro14 did when their 2 SOUTH African teams pulled out. 

TWP were protected from relegation? I don't think so. But as you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone clear this up. If Super league go with 11, wouldn't they get less sky money for the reduction in games, therefore having 12 would be financially better?

   Similar to the Nrl and Warrior's situation if they didn't complete the season.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic. Quinn Ngawati just signed for RUNY in the MLR. I hope RL fans don't complain when they lose the North American market. That comment is a bit tongue in cheek, because the MLR is still very much in the startup category of ventures, and could easily fail. However things like this will leave an impression with the Toronto fans. The Arrows are already looking to get hold of the Wolfpack members list and continue on with games at Lamport.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...