The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I get that, my point would be that the cut off for youth players (or at least youth player wages) is actually in the top 25.

Do you mean nil contribution on the cap Tommy for youth player's? 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do you mean nil contribution on the cap Tommy for youth player's? 

No Harry I mean that youth team level wages, ie less than £17k, even under £10k, are being paid to players in the top 25 of SL squads. So they count on the cap, but are relatively insignificant sums.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

52 minutes ago, dkw said:

Maybe thats the plan behind the Rochdale link up, it would certainly make some sense to have that batch of players to call on.

Only ONE player can DR upwards so not much help from that tie up...…..

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

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...….

[Dave T]

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!

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Only ONE player can DR upwards so not much help from that tie up...…..

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

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

35 minutes ago, dkw said:

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

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

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.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

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!

[dkw]

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. 

[Dave T]

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. 

[Kayakman]

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.

[Man of Kent]

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.

[Dave T]

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. 

[GUBRATS]

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

[Man of Kent]

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).

[Omott91]

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''?

[frank]

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

[Oxford]

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?

[Mattrhino]

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. 

[ghost crayfish]

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. 

[Man of Kent]

4 hours ago, Omott91 said:

Define ''proper club''?

Runs multiple sides, ie reserves, Academy