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

57 minutes ago, frank said:

Wonder if Elstone contributed to the fund?

Sadly seems less than £10K raised,when I looked well done to those that donated some familiar names there, I just wonder how much it would have been if lets say a similar situation had happened in rugby union.

 

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remembered this, and it won't surprise anyone to find out, all 4 of the clubs that voted against introducing a marquee player rule in 2015 voted against Toronto this year, but obviously there is no endemic anti-growth vision problem at some clubs...

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

Just remembered this, and it won't surprise anyone to find out, all 4 of the clubs that voted against introducing a marquee player rule in 2015 voted against Toronto this year, but obviously there is no endemic anti-growth vision problem at some clubs...

Oh dear me.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Just remembered this, and it won't surprise anyone to find out, all 4 of the clubs that voted against introducing a marquee player rule in 2015 voted against Toronto this year, but obviously there is no endemic anti-growth vision problem at some clubs...

I've always been pretty split on the marquee player rule - but what is your view of the level of success of this initiative? How many marquee players featured in the Dream Team this year?

It's hard to judge impact on crowds with locked stadiums, but whilst the marquee player allowances may lead to some decent headlines when signings are made, I'm really interested to see it reviewed in future, as it doesn't look like it is being used to bring superstars into our comp and improving it out of sight.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2020 at 13:24, Damien said:

What you tend to do in business or life is to commission a report to find the evidence that suits the view you have.

Sorry for being so late with this, this is from the John Wilkin passage you posted.

I think that says it all Damien in why you have shared the report with the forum.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2020 at 11:59, Oxford said:

The term vision and TGG in the same sentence without any negative connectives is the hardest thing to achieve.

I think we tend to forget that Elstone to has balance a lot of things like any head of an organisation and it should be remembered that he can't sack chairmen till he gets the result he wants as happens in industry.

And the one thing that all the clubs, who essentially destroyed the hope of expansion forever. is that they are right to be frightened to death of the economic disaster that's about to take place.

Me too, just waiting for the announcement that State Pensions are to be means tested   to pay back some of the borrowing.

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

Me too, just waiting for the announcement that State Pensions are to be means tested   to pay back some of the borrowing.

'arry I believe you are in league with the butcher.

Are you trying to get me in trouble? Look  .........  from my profile Oxy1.JPG.7371c41eb7755779d7dad09f072eead3.JPG I didn't put that there, I'd have put apolitical.

You're right to be worried though when a government has only one answer to everything in the Universe and it begins with A and ends in y, we're all in trouble.

Speaking of which, what has this got to do with SL murdering TWP?

Edited by Oxford

trayodasha-kula = image.png.ee0bb2be98badfd4cc6ff4395bca5f4e.png

 

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

I've always been pretty split on the marquee player rule - but what is your view of the level of success of this initiative? How many marquee players featured in the Dream Team this year?

It's hard to judge impact on crowds with locked stadiums, but whilst the marquee player allowances may lead to some decent headlines when signings are made, I'm really interested to see it reviewed in future, as it doesn't look like it is being used to bring superstars into our comp and improving it out of sight.

I think Marquees have been largely successful and allowed us to bring in individually very talented players. I don't think dream team is particularly the best or indeed only measure as Marquees tend to be in similar positions for example. And its often not clear who if any player is on "marquee money" anyway - I couldn't tell you who if any it was at Leeds for certain from memory.

That said, Sezer has singlehandedly been one of the best players in the league as has Bevan French, with both appearing in the dream team this year. I assume they are both Marquees but could be wrong. 

You can obviously also get a marquee signing wrong too like any signing. 

On measurable benefits like crowds I suppose it is quite difficult. Realistically there's only a handful of recognised RL players with that kind of pull. 1 retired two years ago with a shoulder injury, 1 retired and is making a comeback at Warrington, 1 is tied down to a 10 year deal at the cowboys, the most recognisable was playing for Toronto. Beyond that its a bit of an RL nerdfest to know who Austin or Sezer or Merrin were when they came over. I don't actually think that should be the case anyway that they are measured like this. The SL wage levels have been depressed for some time and this is as much about catching up with the NRL qualitywise as making Super League more attractive for speccies.

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

Nothing whatsoever, just your statement lead me nicely into a discussion I was having with some friends in a WhatsApp group last evening.

Thanks for the response. 

No worries, which one?

trayodasha-kula = image.png.ee0bb2be98badfd4cc6ff4395bca5f4e.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the old days when we signed Union guys on a regular basis on average (For a real top player like Jonathan Davies) it would put 4/5000 on the gate for one match and then basically back to normal.

I think from memory jiffy actually played in an A team match first (Up in Cumbria?)

 

 

Paul

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

Remember the old days when we signed Union guys on a regular basis on average (For a real top player like Jonathan Davies) it would put 4/5000 on the gate for one match and then basically back to normal.

I think from memory jiffy actually played in an A team match first (Up in Cumbria?)

 

 

Paul

Dai Watkins played straight away for't first team, hadn't a clue what was going on for more or less the whole match ( even in those days the sports were so different) until a ball was dropped scooped, sidestepped, scored .... instant hero working up to being a legend. But I dread to think how many failures there were during that period!

trayodasha-kula = image.png.ee0bb2be98badfd4cc6ff4395bca5f4e.png

 

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

Remember the old days when we signed Union guys on a regular basis on average (For a real top player like Jonathan Davies) it would put 4/5000 on the gate for one match and then basically back to normal.

I think from memory jiffy actually played in an A team match first (Up in Cumbria?)

 

 

Paul

Your recollection is mistaken.  Widnes' average home crowd was 6,671 in 1987-88 and 8,483 the following season (which is when Davies joined them), an increase of 27%.  Their home average was above 8,000 for the next two seasons and about 7,500 the season after that so the boost he gave to their crowds was significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Your recollection is mistaken.  Widnes' average home crowd was 6,671 in 1987-88 and 8,483 the following season (which is when Davies joined them), an increase of 27%.  Their home average was above 8,000 for the next two seasons and about 7,500 the season after that so the boost he gave to their crowds was significant.

I am talking about the initial match.

Widnes were a top team then and one must not forget all the other RU signings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

I am talking about the initial match.

Widnes were a top team then and one must not forget all the other RU signings.

 

I was a kid but did Widnes not keep reckoning on he was making his debut and then not playing him for a bit, building the anticipation?

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

I think Marquees have been largely successful and allowed us to bring in individually very talented players. I don't think dream team is particularly the best or indeed only measure as Marquees tend to be in similar positions for example. And its often not clear who if any player is on "marquee money" anyway - I couldn't tell you who if any it was at Leeds for certain from memory.

That said, Sezer has singlehandedly been one of the best players in the league as has Bevan French, with both appearing in the dream team this year. I assume they are both Marquees but could be wrong. 

You can obviously also get a marquee signing wrong too like any signing. 

On measurable benefits like crowds I suppose it is quite difficult. Realistically there's only a handful of recognised RL players with that kind of pull. 1 retired two years ago with a shoulder injury, 1 retired and is making a comeback at Warrington, 1 is tied down to a 10 year deal at the cowboys, the most recognisable was playing for Toronto. Beyond that its a bit of an RL nerdfest to know who Austin or Sezer or Merrin were when they came over. I don't actually think that should be the case anyway that they are measured like this. The SL wage levels have been depressed for some time and this is as much about catching up with the NRL qualitywise as making Super League more attractive for speccies.

I think we do have to be judging marquee success on star quality and getting bums on seats, more viewers, more sponsors etc. otherwise there is little point. 

Unfortunately I think this year has been a bit of a difficult one all round, so not a fair one to judge, but I think there should be question marks around it. It is easy to criticise those who voted against it, but maybe they wanted an increase across the board, or at the lower end, or other changes rather than the approach of paying a handful of players top dollar. But if we've gone down this route, we need to see it through and make the top quality signings. 

At the moment I am swaying to be more favourable towards it, I think some good signings were made this year, but they won't always be a success, but there is no doubt that the likes of Burgess, Widdopp, SBW, Sezer etc added to the attraction of the comp at the start of the year. 

But I think over the next couple of years we need to look at whether we get the benefits from signing these players, obviously we haven't this year unfortunately! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

I am talking about the initial match.

Widnes were a top team then and one must not forget all the other RU signings.

 

I suggest that you're mistaken there.  Davies made his debut with Widnes on 15 January 1989 against Salford and the crowd was basically the same as their crowd two weeks earlier against St Helens.  Their average from when he debuted for them through to the end of that season was 11,116 as compared to an average of 6,727 for their home matches earlier in the season.  That's a big difference.

Edited by Big Picture
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...