Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

If you think that there should be no critical assessment of prospects before saying yes and allocating funding then I agree.

All very well. You are talking about now and setting the parameters of debate to what you want to be whilst ignoring the context of the thread and discussion. If you want to keep creating strawman arguments that's fine but I'm not interested.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

All very well. You are talking about now and setting the parameters of debate to what you want to be whilst ignoring the context of the thread and discussion. If you want to keep creating strawman arguments that's fine but I'm not interested.

But you are essentially saying the SL should support Toronto without proof of a viable plan.

If that is not what you are saying, then you are saying that you are comfortable that the plan pur forward is viable and SL should support it.

Because I'm sure it can't be that you don't think the plan is viable but we should just support it anyway.

So which is it?  I'm genuinely interested given the strength of your argument that this is about self interest and ignoring opportunity.

FWIW I'm clear that my opposition is that the plan doesn't make sense, despite me wishing it did.

Edited by FearTheVee
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

FFS Damien, why is anybody pro or anti the decision that has been taken and writing on these pages, it couldn't be based on their opinions by any chance, could it. Jeez you have wrote some stupid things (my opinion) but this one takes the biscuit.

FFS to yourself Harry. It again says everything about you that you reply that to me but not the person I was responding to telling me how I should think and what I am mixing up. Says it all and what we have come to expect. Double standards as usual.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

But you are essentially saying the SL should support Toronto without proof of a viable plan.

If that is not what you are saying, then you are saying that you are comfortable that the plan pur forward is viable and SL should support it.

Because I'm sure it can't be that you don't think the plan is viable but we should just support it anyway.

So which is it?  I'm genuinely interested.

No. You are repeating what was literally said about 100 pages ago and are having a different debate. Support comes in many forms and should have started 1 year ago. This is the result of a series of actions from Elstone, and those clubs that didn't want Toronto in the first place, to align to a self fulfilling prophecy.

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

No. You are repeating what was literally said about 100 pages ago and are having a different debate. Support comes in many forms and should have started 1 year ago. This is the result of a series of actions from Elstone, and those clubs that didn't want Toronto in the first place, to align to a self fulfilling prophecy.

So what do you think should have happened with this vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Damien said:

FFS to yourself Harry. It again says everything about you that you reply that to me but not the person I was responding to telling me how I should think and what I am mixing up. Says it all and what we have come to expect. Double standards as usual.

Don't be so soft, these pages are not all one-2-one conversations, we read, we answer it is a debating forum.

No double standards, Damien.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

So what do you think should have happened with this vote?

I've already said Toronto shouldn't have been put back in Super League next year due to the way things stand with Covid and then readmitted in 2022. It would need to be done in a much fairer and better way than this season with equal funding and a proper plan in pace rather than the reluctant acceptance and then death by a thousand cuts approach that we have seen this season.

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

Don't be so soft, these pages are not all one-2-one conversations, we read, we answer it is a debating forum.

No double standards, Damien.

You just did double standard Harry, you just cant help it and don't even realise you are doing it!

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

I've already said Toronto shouldn't have been put back in Super League next year due to the way things stand with Covid and then readmitted in 2022. It would need to be done in a much fairer and better way than this season with equal funding and a proper plan in pace rather than the reluctant acceptance and then death by a thousand cuts approach that we have seen this season.

Even if the livolsi presentation was crapola, made little fiscal sense and the more likely outcome being one of unsustainability for twp and having significant impact on the remaining clubs?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've already said Toronto shouldn't have been put back in Super League next year due to the way things stand with Covid and then readmitted in 2022. It would need to be done in a much fairer and better way than this season with equal funding and a proper plan in pace rather than the reluctant acceptance and then death by a thousand cuts approach that we have seen this season.

I agree with that.

But the onus for a "proper plan" isn't just on SL - they can't magic up a workable plan if one doesn't exist.  Nor can they cave to "now or never" threats if it doesn't stack up.

I think we both agree the right decision has been made - you woudn't have thought it from your posts though! 😉

I'm very, very much looking forward to hearing from Saints, Leeds and RFL on the basis for their yes votes though.  One thing I readily accept is I haven't seen the plans and if I am wrong and there was a robust plan underneath it all there are serious questions to answer.

Edited by FearTheVee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Robin Evans said:

Even if the livolsi presentation was crapola, made little fiscal sense and the more likely outcome being one of unsustainability for twp and having significant impact on the remaining clubs?

I've not seen it, can you send me a copy? I have seen the nonsense excuses and research by SLE that stand up to no scrutiny at all and have seen the happenings and timing of events this week that are frankly embarrassing for the sport.

I have already said it would be on the proviso of bonds etc too, many, many pages ago.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've not seen it, can you send me a copy? 

Well thats the point I've been making the past fortnight. Unless we are privy to those numbers, and impact outcome, we are arguing blind.

You are arguing a case for twp based on very limited information that neither you or I have.

I would hope the proposal for readmission was properly scrutinised and an informed decision made based on that. Neither you or I have a clue if this is not the case.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

I agree with that.

But the onus for a "proper plan" isn't just on SL - they can't magic up a workable plan if one doesn't exist.  Nor can they cave to "now or never" threats if it doesn't stack up.

I think we both agree the right decision has been made - you woudn't have thought it from your posts though! 😉

The right decision for next season without doubt. I disagree strongly with the reasoning, the excuses given, what has happened to arrive at this situation. I also disagree with those that wouldn't like to find a way forward and the apparent glee that some have with killing off an RL club.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommygilf said:

Clubs who don't produce players are just taking from the game. We can't sustain excess clubs. That's literally what you just said.

The area of Leigh produces pro players Tommy, it has a number of junior teams that participate in the league systems, you know like other places in Lancashire (Gtr Manchester for arguments sake), West and North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Humberside in towns that have pro clubs but no academies, what would you do have the focal point of the sport in those towns squashed?

Can you not get it through your head that the wealthy SL clubs hoover up all the best kids available as young as 13 years old for fear of missing them, look at your own academy of the last 20years are so including the 'Golden Generation' how many were kids from outside the Leeds Boundaries?

It was the RL set up in those towns that introduced the kids to the game not the SL clubs they ended with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Well thats the point I've been making the past fortnight. Unless we are privy to those numbers, and impact outcome, we are arguing blind.

You are arguing a case for twp based on very limited information that neither you or I have.

I would hope the proposal for readmission was properly scrutinised and an informed decision made based on that. Neither you or I have a clue if this is not the case.

Arguing things like Toronto should have got fair support and central funding is not limited information. It is naive to think that £1.8 million this season and next season wouldn't have effected things. What has come out about the report against their admittance was frankly nonsense and does not stand up to scrutiny.

Yes the exact figures we have not seen but as I have said I would want a bond anyhow. I have certainly never blindly argued for Toronto to be admitted for 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Well thats the point I've been making the past fortnight. Unless we are privy to those numbers, and impact outcome, we are arguing blind.

You are arguing a case for twp based on very limited information that neither you or I have.

I would hope the proposal for readmission was properly scrutinised and an informed decision made based on that. Neither you or I have a clue if this is not the case.

Robin I'm sure you can see that if the official arguments against are at best flimsy at worst thinly veiled prejudices that they lose credence and add weight to the idea that the substance of the case in favour wasn't going to be listened to.

If Super League had come out saying that at best they only see Canada being worth £5million a season in terms of increased TV rights with Toronto and Ottawa in Super League competing reasonably well for 5 years and that was based on a gross sum that did not account for SL having to adapt to transatlantic competition. If they evidenced research into the Toronto sports market beyond saying "its crowded" such as by saying how the Wolfpack have successfully positioned themselves as a reasonably priced sporting event much lower than say the Blue Jays, Leafs or Raptors, whilst playing against League 1 and Championship opposition growing crowds to rival the much more historic and culturally significant CFL team Toronto Argonauts, then it may come across as genuine. Even if after that they said they'd find it difficult to fund a transatlantic team on the current Toronto pricing structure, and that was enough to say why to vote against, they didn't. If they wanted to kick Toronto out (or rather deny their resubmission) they could have done a much more professional job of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Robin I'm sure you can see that if the official arguments against are at best flimsy at worst thinly veiled prejudices that they lose credence and add weight to the idea that the substance of the case in favour wasn't going to be listened to.

If Super League had come out saying that at best they only see Canada being worth £5million a season in terms of increased TV rights with Toronto and Ottawa in Super League competing reasonably well for 5 years and that was based on a gross sum that did not account for SL having to adapt to transatlantic competition. If they evidenced research into the Toronto sports market beyond saying "its crowded" such as by saying how the Wolfpack have successfully positioned themselves as a reasonably priced sporting event much lower than say the Blue Jays, Leafs or Raptors, whilst playing against League 1 and Championship opposition growing crowds to rival the much more historic and culturally significant CFL team Toronto Argonauts, then it may come across as genuine. Even if after that they said they'd find it difficult to fund a transatlantic team on the current Toronto pricing structure, and that was enough to say why to vote against, they didn't. If they wanted to kick Toronto out (or rather deny their resubmission) they could have done a much more professional job of it.

Well put, much better than me!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Robin I'm sure you can see that if the official arguments against are at best flimsy at worst thinly veiled prejudices that they lose credence and add weight to the idea that the substance of the case in favour wasn't going to be listened to.

If Super League had come out saying that at best they only see Canada being worth £5million a season in terms of increased TV rights with Toronto and Ottawa in Super League competing reasonably well for 5 years and that was based on a gross sum that did not account for SL having to adapt to transatlantic competition. If they evidenced research into the Toronto sports market beyond saying "its crowded" such as by saying how the Wolfpack have successfully positioned themselves as a reasonably priced sporting event much lower than say the Blue Jays, Leafs or Raptors, whilst playing against League 1 and Championship opposition growing crowds to rival the much more historic and culturally significant CFL team Toronto Argonauts, then it may come across as genuine. Even if after that they said they'd find it difficult to fund a transatlantic team on the current Toronto pricing structure, and that was enough to say why to vote against, they didn't. If they wanted to kick Toronto out (or rather deny their resubmission) they could have done a much more professional job of it.

That’s all fair enough but did you actually expect Super League/The RFL/whoever to actually release full details behind their findings to the public? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The area of Leigh produces pro players Tommy, it has a number of junior teams that participate in the league systems, you know like other places in Lancashire (Gtr Manchester for arguments sake), West and North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Humberside in towns that have pro clubs but no academies, what would you do have the focal point of the sport in those towns squashed?

Can you not get it through your head that the wealthy SL clubs hoover up all the best kids available as young as 13 years old for fear of missing them, look at your own academy of the last 20years are so including the 'Golden Generation' how many were kids from outside the Leeds Boundaries?

It was the RL set up in those towns that introduced the kids to the game not the SL clubs they ended with.

Harry, Harry, Harry. As you said it matters if the pro team produces players, if they don't they're just a leech on a dying body of the RL player base. Unless a club has an academy or is the only RL outpost in the council area I agree its a pointless endeavour that actively harms the game's player pool, get rid!

Its taken me a while to agree with you on this but you've won me round. Why fund these leech clubs when the amateurs are the one's in need of funding and actually produce players? Canadian RL doesn't need Toronto Wolfpack to help grassroots development (you've said so many times thats what you want) so why does Wigan MDC RL need Leigh Centurions on top of the Warriors? Or Leeds CC RL need Hunslet? Or Wakefield MDC need Fev Rovers? The player pool is so dire as you say these leech clubs just take from the pool, why do we need them on top of what else we have?

Obviously your argument is that the player pool is so tight that we need to contract as much as possible to the clubs with academies and maybe a few outposts. Only when they are producing surpluses can we even think about expanding the professional game into places like Leigh! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s all fair enough but did you actually expect Super League/The RFL/whoever to actually release full details behind their findings to the public? 

I'll let you know when I see a fag packet rolling over the road...

In fairness from journos etc we have actually heard most of it. Hence the "zero material benefit in the short to medium term" quote. That there's not a lot is a reflection on the Super League not those questioning it.

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

I'll let you know when I see a fag packet rolling over the road...

In fairness from journos etc we have actually heard most of it. Hence the "zero material benefit in the short to medium term" quote. That there's not a lot is a reflection on the Super League not those questioning it.

I don’t think it is a reflection on anyone. They’re not duty bound to release these details behind their findings. 

  • Confused 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...