The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

By Eck , that took some getting through , 9/10 pages , it's a good job I'm out their earning money to keep the economy afloat , while all you lot are stealing a living being paid to chat on here about RL

Innocent mi Lud, Very happily retired.

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Innocent mi Lud, Very happily retired.

Bloody tax dodger

I'd be a lot closer if I'd never got involved at Leigh

That's why I laugh when I hear fans moaning about owners who either aren't rich enough to achieve those fans ambitions , or aren't willing to bankrupt themselves for their club 

 

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, PackAttack said:

What are the rules surrounding the signing of players from union that then don't count against the cap in year 1? Do these deals have to be multi-year deals and the cap relief only applies in year 1 of the deal? Or can they be one-year deals? In that case, I assume that they then don't count against the cap but also don't require the club to have them beyond year 1 when the cap relief no longer applies? If one year deals are allowed, what would stop a well-funded club like Toronto signing union players with league experience to deals for just this year and fill out their roster without exceeding the cap?

I can't see anything about them needing to be multi-year deals. 

However, if they are returning RL players they will count 50% of their salary. Only a brand new RL player gets their value at 0% and it is unlikely for a player to sign for 1 year. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I can't see anything about them needing to be multi-year deals. 

However, if they are returning RL players they will count 50% of their salary. Only a brand new RL player gets their value at 0% and it is unlikely for a player to sign for 1 year. 

I'd actually like to see that discount extended to 2 or 3 years to make it more attractive for clubs. Very few converts are anywhere near ready for Super League in their first year anyway.

[fairfolly]

Best of luck Robin. Get out here to Spain and get some sun. 24 degrees at the moment, perfect for sitting down doing nothing and reading the Forum outside on my laptop. Hope for a good game tomorrow between the Bulls and Fev.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

I'd actually like to see that discount extended to 2 or 3 years to make it more attractive for clubs. Very few converts are anywhere near ready for Super League in their first year anyway.

I think it is 0% then 50%.

I could be wrong, I thought I read something about the first full year is 0%, so we still get Burrell for free this year (could be mistaken on that). 

If that is the case TWP, could maybe sign somebody this year knowing he wasn't on the cap for 2 years. 

[Robin Evans]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Bloody tax dodger

I'd be a lot closer if I'd never got involved at Leigh

That's why I laugh when I hear fans moaning about owners who either aren't rich enough to achieve those fans ambitions , or aren't willing to bankrupt themselves for their club 

 

Knowing a couple of folk (yourself incl) who have put their heads above the parapet, some of the comments from some fans leave me chuckling when those people advocate spending even more of your cash.

I remember folks advocating the sacking of john bastian a few years ago. Fair dos like.... who pays his severence pay???? "Well he's got to go".

Well yeah.... who pays?

"The club"!

What with?

Well.... you know the script.

Argyle seemingly has one huge wad and for now at least, appears to be in it for the long haul..... but, as you know as well as i do, maintaining that level of outgoings has a habit of becoming more than just irritating 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think it is 0% then 50%.

I could be wrong, I thought I read something about the first full year is 0%, so we still get Burrell for free this year (could be mistaken on that). 

If that is the case TWP, could maybe sign somebody this year knowing he wasn't on the cap for 2 years. 

You can actually get 2 full seasons at 0%: salary is 'zero rated' until the end of the first full cap year after signing, so signing someone who qualifies after 1st Feb gives you the whole of the current and following seasons with a 0% recorded value and then a third season at 50%.

Similarly with a returning talent you can get 2 seasons at 50% and a third at 75%.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

You can actually get 2 full seasons at 0%: salary is 'zero rated' until the end of the first full cap year after signing, so signing someone who qualifies after 1st Feb gives you the whole of the current and following seasons with a 0% recorded value and then a third season at 50%.

Similarly with a returning talent you can get 2 seasons at 50% and a third at 75%.

Thanks, that confirms what I was trying to say, but even reading my post back I wasn't clear. 

That was my understanding, Burrell is still free on our cap this season. 

[Bob8]

On 13/02/2020 at 20:26, 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. 

I made the point in the RU section that had TWP applied for the English RU system, they would rightly be declined and RU can afford to do that and does not need the disuption of a team based so far away. It is an imposition, but we do not have many big clubs in our system, nor owners with fat wallets, that we can afford to turn them away. There are many idealists on the expansion side, but there are also plenty on the traditional side too. The first lot are starry eyed and think having a team in Canada is just great, the second lot want to have a tantrum and demand their childhood back.

If TWP was magically based in a city in the UK, or even Ireland or France, that would be far, far better. But, until there is a local side in our region that has money to burn, we should be grateful for what we get, in my opinion. Such pragmatisim is not popular on this forum!

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

You can actually get 2 full seasons at 0%: salary is 'zero rated' until the end of the first full cap year after signing, so signing someone who qualifies after 1st Feb gives you the whole of the current and following seasons with a 0% recorded value and then a third season at 50%.

Similarly with a returning talent you can get 2 seasons at 50% and a third at 75%.

So they can sign anyone from union and It won't count? And how many union players can they get ?  This could be the solution 

[Damien]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Rightly? 

 

I'm also not sure they would have been declined, after all the pro 14 exists with teams from south africa to Italy. 

I think Bob is right about the English competition. I think if Toronto went to the Pro 14 with an enticing offer then it would be a different story.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, fairfolly said:

Best of luck Robin. Get out here to Spain and get some sun. 24 degrees at the moment, perfect for sitting down doing nothing and reading the Forum outside on my laptop. Hope for a good game tomorrow between the Bulls and Fev.

He doesn't do Spain , not very ' Latin ' our Robin

[aj1908]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Rightly? 

 

I'm also not sure they would have been declined, after all the pro 14 exists with teams from south africa to Italy. 

English ru would say no

Top 14.or mlr would dry hump.them to join

[Kayakman]

We are not even casually interested in Union...we are League...we were born as League, currently are League and, if we must,  will die as League.....thats the way it is.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

We are not even casually interested in Union...we are League...we were born as League, currently are League and, if we must,  will die as League.....thats the way it is.

Glad to hear it 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I made the point in the RU section that had TWP applied for the English RU system, they would rightly be declined and RU can afford to do that and does not need the disuption of a team based so far away. It is an imposition, but we do not have many big clubs in our system, nor owners with fat wallets, that we can afford to turn them away. There are many idealists on the expansion side, but there are also plenty on the traditional side too. The first lot are starry eyed and think having a team in Canada is just great, the second lot want to have a tantrum and demand their childhood back.

If TWP was magically based in a city in the UK, or even Ireland or France, that would be far, far better. But, until there is a local side in our region that has money to burn, we should be grateful for what we get, in my opinion. Such pragmatisim is not popular on this forum!

Morning Bob, do you honestly believe it is so black and white (as your bit in bold) I don't, and with your next paragraph of TWP being "magicked" into the UK you seemingly have a grey area of consideration. I think the concept of "expanding" the game into NA is an ideal that every Rugby League fan would cherish my concern is not just with the Wolfpack but with the "super charged" introduction of more teams/entities from that continent,  I have described it before as "bringing the circus to town" but I do not think there are enough performer's about to furnish multiple new teams, and what if these teams come to fruition and do has as been suggested by some replace teams in towns that actually can and do add to the playing roster, with the best will in the world if NA really set on a structured plan of "expansion" for Rugby League I consider at least 3 generations to produce any number of players of a sufficient standard to make an impact in the professional ranks.

As you know I have had some expierence in the amatuer game, and your good self with your pioneering exploits overseas must realise that Rugby League is an organic product which must be planted, nurtured, cared for and maintained before any harvest is possible.

Mr Perez himself said that one team is not enough in NA, I do not disagree with that statement, but TWP is the prototype not yet proven if it fits snuggly into our set-up and I honestly think that may be the thinking of some of the SL hierarchy in that it is happening all to fast.

So I am not screaming for my childhood back, I am taking hopefully a pragmatic view instead of diving headfirst into NA we should stand off a little, let TWP proove the concept works, make a structured workable plan and only then proceed with the application.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

So they can sign anyone from union and It won't count? And how many union players can they get ?  This could be the solution 

You can use two dispensations on the new or returning player rules. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

So they can sign anyone from union and It won't count? And how many union players can they get ?  This could be the solution 

You can have 2 'new' OR 'returning' talent players* but the addition of the difference between their actual salary and cap value to the aggregate spend must not take the club over its sustainable cap#.

*actually you could have more but, as Dave's pointed out as I was typing, only 2 (which must be identified) can benefit from the dispensation

# this applies to Marquee dispensation too

[aj1908]

Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

You can have 2 'new' OR 'returning' talent players but the addition of the difference between their actual salary and cap value to the aggregate spend must not take the club over its sustainable cap.

They have sbw.  can they sign anyone else?

I didn't understand the last sentence 

[Keith989]

53 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

English ru would say no

Top 14.or mlr would dry hump.them to join

I really have no idea why you think the Top 14 would let them in? They have 3 fully professional highly competitive divisions plus a semi pro fourth division and none of those teams would be willing to let a foreign team parachuted in ahead of them. The french do have a Swiss club in their leagues but they had to start from the very bottom, which is the 8th division I think?

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

18 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

They have sbw.  can they sign anyone else?

I didn't understand the last sentence 

Allowed spend is the lower of £2.1m or the club's sustainable cap (calculated from income, costs etc). If a club has a higher sustainable cap than £2.1m it can use the allowable dispensations to actually spend up to its sustainable cap (although recorded aggregate cap must, I believe, still not exceed £2.1m).

[Bob8]

...

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Morning Bob, do you honestly believe it is so black and white (as your bit in bold) I don't, and with your next paragraph of TWP being "magicked" into the UK you seemingly have a grey area of consideration. I think the concept of "expanding" the game into NA is an ideal that every Rugby League fan would cherish my concern is not just with the Wolfpack but with the "super charged" introduction of more teams/entities from that continent,  I have described it before as "bringing the circus to town" but I do not think there are enough performer's about to furnish multiple new teams, and what if these teams come to fruition and do has as been suggested by some replace teams in towns that actually can and do add to the playing roster, with the best will in the world if NA really set on a structured plan of "expansion" for Rugby League I consider at least 3 generations to produce any number of players of a sufficient standard to make an impact in the professional ranks.

As you know I have had some expierence in the amatuer game, and your good self with your pioneering exploits overseas must realise that Rugby League is an organic product which must be planted, nurtured, cared for and maintained before any harvest is possible.

Mr Perez himself said that one team is not enough in NA, I do not disagree with that statement, but TWP is the prototype not yet proven if it fits snuggly into our set-up and I honestly think that may be the thinking of some of the SL hierarchy in that it is happening all to fast.

So I am not screaming for my childhood back, I am taking hopefully a pragmatic view instead of diving headfirst into NA we should stand off a little, let TWP proove the concept works, make a structured workable plan and only then proceed with the application.

I have been clear in the post that it is not black and white, but a balance.

You cite the examples of our own experience. What works in Leigh and Copenhagen are very different. We had success in Copenhagen by appealing to hipsters and putting the crowd first and the players last. I do not recommend such an approach in Leigh! - though you might know better and I am making an assumption.

I think we might agree that one professional team, isolated in North America is not ideal. Only the most eager champions of TWP would say it is ideal. Some would believe that if we go back to the 80's everything will be great, that is stupid. Others believe we just have to show foreigners the game and they will love it, which is going back to the 1880's.

I do not know about you, when running a committee in rugby league, I always liked to have a couple or even a majority of non-rugby league fans. It gave a certain realism. They would see some of the things we held dear as ridiculous.

I am perhaps more pessimistic about the future of the game than you. I think we have to risk throwing away the baby as things are that bad. I do not blame you if you are more optimisitic that me.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Allowed spend is the lower of £2.1m or the club's sustainable cap (calculated from income, costs etc). If a club has a higher sustainable cap than £2.1m it can use the allowable dispensations to actually spend up to its sustainable cap (although recorded aggregate cap must, I believe, still not exceed £2.1m).

At that level neither the Wolfpack nor anyone else will be attracting any top RU talent.  The Aviva Premiership salary cap is 7 million £, the Top14 cap is about equal to Catalans' entire budget, and although the Pro14 doesn't have a cap a few years ago it was reportedly paying players 85% of what players in the Aviva Premiership were getting so we can notionally put their cap at 6 million £.  English RL is very much the poor cousin of RU in relative terms.