Jump to content

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Which would suggest that TWP had compiled a 22 man squad for less money than some other clubs pay for theirs. Because as we know their 23rd signing used up the last £200k or so. 

But tbh, it sounds like we are agreed, TWP haven't done a good job budgeting, and there are grounds for some sensible allowances for dispensation.

Might well have been less than that as they loaned out Greg Worthington around the same time...….

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

50 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Might well have been less than that as they loaned out Greg Worthington around the same time...….

I don't mind admitting I have no idea how loans work in terms of the salary cap!

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

Is that the rule? I didn't know that, what's the thinking behind it? 

 

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yes, although it says 'one player at any one time' so they could, I'd guess, actually use more than one over the course of the season.

Would it be to prevent salary cap fiddling? i.e. have three of your players on another team's books and just borrow them?

Again, don't understand how the cap works for loans and DR's so not sure if that would even be an option.

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

I don't mind admitting I have no idea how loans work in terms of the salary cap!

For players loaned (not DR'd) from SL clubs, the loan is treated as a permanent transfer and the player is not considered a player of the loaning club for the purpose of calculating its aggregate liability for the period of the loan whether the club taking the player is paying the full, part or none of the player's salary over that time. Rules are different for players from Champ and L1 clubs with any payments made by the club taking the player allowed to be offset against his salary at the parent club.

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

 

Would it be to prevent salary cap fiddling? i.e. have three of your players on another team's books and just borrow them?

Again, don't understand how the cap works for loans and DR's so not sure if that would even be an option.

Good question as the current SL Salary Cap regs only appear to cover players DRing from a SL club downwards and not upwards!

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

 

Would it be to prevent salary cap fiddling? i.e. have three of your players on another team's books and just borrow them?

Again, don't understand how the cap works for loans and DR's so not sure if that would even be an option.

That's the only thing I could think of, it closes a loophole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Decent discussion on Sky in the match buildup, the three pundits speaking in favour of TWP but there were two interesting points that merited further debate. 

Firstly, Clarke asked the question a couple of times about do we want  a N.A team in SL, would it ever pay for SL, and this was skirted over. The answer isn't just necessarily yes. 

Secondly, Carney aggressively made the point that Argyl is funding this and we have nowt to lose - but there has been a lot of anger that the RFL/SL are insisting this is self-funded. So even a reasonable point from Carney has a lot of anger from some sections of supporters. 

I think Clarke's point about protection from relegation like Catalans had was the most sensible that had little argument against. Tbh if you give them 3 years protection, it gives time to iron out the salary cap detail as you progress. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Decent discussion on Sky in the match buildup, the three pundits speaking in favour of TWP but there were two interesting points that merited further debate. 

Firstly, Clarke asked the question a couple of times about do we want  a N.A team in SL, would it ever pay for SL, and this was skirted over. The answer isn't just necessarily yes. 

Secondly, Carney aggressively made the point that Argyl is funding this and we have nowt to lose - but there has been a lot of anger that the RFL/SL are insisting this is self-funded. So even a reasonable point from Carney has a lot of anger from some sections of supporters. 

I think Clarke's point about protection from relegation like Catalans had was the most sensible that had little argument against. Tbh if you give them 3 years protection, it gives time to iron out the salary cap detail as you progress. 

We don't want your charity and we never have...all we wanted was a level playing field but that is not to be...it is what it is.

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

Firstly, Clarke asked the question a couple of times about do we want  a N.A team in SL, would it ever pay for SL, and this was skirted over. The answer isn't just necessarily yes. 

Thought it was Carney who raised this but for me it’s the most important question of all. It all flows from that. If yes, then help them properly, not just throw a few titbits. If not, then don’t

It’s not clear to me if there’s majority support for a North American team from the Super League chairmen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Man of Kent said:

Thought it was Carney who raised this but for me it’s the most important question of all. It all flows from that. If yes, then help them properly, not just throw a few titbits. If not, then don’t

It’s not clear to me if there’s majority support for a North American team from the Super League chairmen.

I agree. 

But the next question is how much are you prepared to spend on it? 

Then you go into, best way of doing it. 

It feels to me like the first answer is Yes, then £0, and I think we should be prepared to make more allowances in the how. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The annoying thing is , it's not like the SL club bosses haven't known this was coming 

So yes , do they want a NA club , or not 

This is why I was happy to see them promoted , too much disruption in the lower tiers , no longer our problem ,but could be again next year ?

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

I agree. 

But the next question is how much are you prepared to spend on it? 

Then you go into, best way of doing it. 

It feels to me like the first answer is Yes, then £0, and I think we should be prepared to make more allowances in the how. 

Toronto face so many short-term structural problems by being a team rather than a ‘proper’ club that the answer is probably go the whole hog and remove P&R. I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s the way forward anyway (to raise standards and growth prospects).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Toronto face so many short-term structural problems by being a team rather than a ‘proper’ club that the answer is probably go the whole hog and remove P&R. I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s the way forward anyway (to raise standards and growth prospects).

Define ''proper club''?

Link to post
Share on other sites

These SL chairmen have their heads in the sand ,they need to cut some slack for the Pack, make it  a level field instead of  placing obstructions in the way..If the WP fails in their attempt to remain in SL then it's only a matter of time before SL can't sustain themselves financialy  They need more  new clubs in the comp to  give it a lift Looking at the crowd today the stadium looked three parts empty.

Personally if the Pack fail I hope the whole rotten  show collapses

Edited by frank
correction
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2020 at 12:08, Dave T said:

Wire are away, so who knows, but not sure it is a massive draw to Wire fans, apart from being in their town.

Got to say I do find it rather sad that one Dave, a game of TGG down the road and  we CBA, no use complaining anymore about empty stadia, and holes in the crowds at finals or for internationals then is it?

Edited by Oxford

trayodasha-kula = image.png.ee0bb2be98badfd4cc6ff4395bca5f4e.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there squad managment has been bad, I think they have goals they want achieve and getting 30 journeymen to finish 10th is what they are looking to achieve. 

I think the betted on SL giving them a little slack as anyone can see they are at a disadvantage because they don't have 5 or so good youth players on 10k a year. 

It really is bad managment by SL because it is a not a good look if a club in your Premier competition is unable to field a full match day squad. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is gonna get really embarrassing very quickly when the shiny new trans Atlantic Super League club with SBW can't field a full team!! English rugby league is amateur hour. It'll be a farce - an absolute indictment on English administrators - if Toronto aren't given dispensation to which they're entitled, based on cost of living and other salary cap dispensation they can't access as a new expansion club. 

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

Got to say I do find it rather sad that one Dave, a game of TGG down the road and  we CBA, no use complaining anymore about empty stadia, and holes in the crowds at finals or for internationals then is it?

The majority of Saints fans don't bother with away games. That's life and is the same with most teams in most sports. Many buy a season ticket, go to home games and is a good hobby for them. 

I see little reason why they would go and pay for an away game that has relatively little appeal just because it is down the road. 

There is even less reason why Wire fans would attend. 

This game is also on TV. 

There is no criticism due here. 

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

This is gonna get really embarrassing very quickly when the shiny new trans Atlantic Super League club with SBW can't field a full team!! English rugby league is amateur hour. It'll be a farce - an absolute indictment on English administrators - if Toronto aren't given dispensation to which they're entitled, based on cost of living and other salary cap dispensation they can't access as a new expansion club. 

As somebody who wants TWP to do well (and certainly stay up!), I have a fair bit of anger for TWP and the active decision they made to run with a 23 man squad and push for dispensations late in the day. 

If they are paying over the odds, they have been doing so for 3 years now and haven't planned accordingly or won the dispensations before spending the last of their money on slot 23 instead of spreading it across 23 to 25.

The reason they are short of bodies is because of their actions first and foremost. It was arrogant, and being proven misguided 3 rounds in. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The majority of Saints fans don't bother with away games. That's life

Just as sad Dave. but it's not life.

The thing is can we change that outlook and how to do it.

But a TGG game down the road, on your home turf doesn't seem too much of a brainer, then again I'm one who'll turn to an A team game in January in Batley.

trayodasha-kula = image.png.ee0bb2be98badfd4cc6ff4395bca5f4e.png

 

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

As somebody who wants TWP to do well (and certainly stay up!), I have a fair bit of anger for TWP and the active decision they made to run with a 23 man squad and push for dispensations late in the day. 

If they are paying over the odds, they have been doing so for 3 years now and haven't planned accordingly or won the dispensations before spending the last of their money on slot 23 instead of spreading it across 23 to 25.

The reason they are short of bodies is because of their actions first and foremost. It was arrogant, and being proven misguided 3 rounds in. 

What you say has truth in it but come on Dave, they’ve existed for 5 minutes. Maybe they will make bad decisions but it’s all part of the learning process. That’s why RL should cut them more slack than other clubs, not forever but certainly in their first few years.

So they come up short in some areas, they more than compensate for that in the publicity they have brought to RL alone. They’re certainly more deserving than the clubs who do nothing year after year except just survive on 3-4K gates.

Leaving them to rot or fail because ‘that’s what Wakefield have to do’ is ludicrously short sighted. And will hurt RL more in the long run.

  • Like 5
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...