The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, TBone said:

The rule applies ‘for the duration of the loan’. e.g. if loaned for a six week period the receiving club is hit with six weeks salary cap value. The agreement between the clubs is irrelevant.

From reading the rules it looks like it is different to that. 

If a club has a cap liability of say £2m, and they sign a play on loan, their cap liability becomes £2m plus the £20k for the period the players are on loan. 

So they would be breaching for that period. 

I can only assume that dispensation has been granted for youth loans, which they are entitled to request as part of the regulations. 

[TBone]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

From reading the rules it looks like it is different to that. 

If a club has a cap liability of say £2m, and they sign a play on loan, their cap liability becomes £2m plus the £20k for the period the players are on loan. 

So they would be breaching for that period. 

I can only assume that dispensation has been granted for youth loans, which they are entitled to request as part of the regulations. 

Errr, not sure that we differ - what I was saying that the players cap follows him to the loanee club. If they have space all is fine, if not then, yes, they have breached the cap. Having just read it again (rather that trust my hazy memory - it was about 3am when I posted!) it states...

Quote

5.8

a) The temporary transfer of a Player by way of loan shall be treated as a permanent transfer. Accordingly:

i) where a Super League Club is the loaning Cluib, the Player shall cease to be considered a Player of that Club for the purpose of calculating the Aggregate Liability for the duration of the Loan;

ii) where a Super League Club is the loanee Club, the Player's full Salary Cap Value at his original Club (for the avoidance of doubt excluding dispensations that related only to the Original Club) shall count towards the loanee Club's Aggregate Liability. 

I guess the question might be 'does the loanee club get stiffed for the full season cap value of the player, or the duration of the loan' as it isn't explicitly mentioned in paragraph ii, although i says the loaning club only loses the 'cap burden' for the duration.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, TBone said:

Errr, not sure that we differ - what I was saying that the players cap follows him to the loanee club. If they have space all is fine, if not then, yes, they have breached the cap. Having just read it again (rather that trust my hazy memory - it was about 3am when I posted!) it states...

I guess the question might be 'does the loanee club get stiffed for the full season cap value of the player, or the duration of the loan' as it isn't explicitly mentioned in paragraph ii, although i says the loaning club only loses the 'cap burden' for the duration.

The difference I think is that in your scenario the cap would show £2m plus £1700 (1 month worth) whereas in mine it would show £2m plus £20k for the one month. 

I think as it is a live cap, you can't at any stage have a cap value exceeding the limit

I expect this is to stop loaning 5 world class players for the key part of the season at a reasonable rate. Their full salary would count on your liability for that month.

So if TWP are at full cap, and these two players are at £20k each, then they would be above the cap limit by £40k for this period of time. My understanding is that this would be a breach if not agreed. As it is a live cap, I expect it has been agreed otherwise they wouldn't be registered by the RFL. 

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

Even if he does have a vision, how can he get on with it when his Paymasters tell him what to do and say. 

We only have to look at the infamous press conference to know which 3 Clubs pull his strings. 

[TBone]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The difference I think is that in your scenario the cap would show £2m plus £1700 (1 month worth) whereas in mine it would show £2m plus £20k for the one month. 

I think as it is a live cap, you can't at any stage have a cap value exceeding the limit

I expect this is to stop loaning 5 world class players for the key part of the season at a reasonable rate. Their full salary would count on your liability for that month.

So if TWP are at full cap, and these two players are at £20k each, then they would be above the cap limit by £40k for this period of time. My understanding is that this would be a breach if not agreed. As it is a live cap, I expect it has been agreed otherwise they wouldn't be registered by the RFL. 

I agree that you can't have a cap value exceeding the limit, as I just said - does the loanee club get stiffed for the full cap burden and, with the wording as it is, the answer is probably 'yes'. I was wrong at 3am - so we agree

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Couldnt they just have deregistered Stanley and then look to reregister him when he is available. 

If we say he is on 150k. Then torontos cap right now could 1.98m, remove it and it goes down to 1.83m + three lots of 20k so a total aggregate liability of 1.89m right now.

Add stanley back in along with the (let's.guess at 6k,) cost of the loans and their aggregate liability then is 1.986m 

 

There is something about not being able to de-register players, or even loan them out when they are injured, so assume this comes under the same thing. 

But I can't help but feel that we won't see Stanley, and maybe they have come to some kind of agreement over offloading him.

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Stanley isnt injured though is he.

Plus as he hasnt played yet there is no real need for him to be registered at all as of right now.

The rules regarding loans seem crazy. You could have 70k worth of cap space but couldnt loan two 40k players for a month

I suppose you are mixing two different ways of policing a cap though. It is your total cap value at any one time being policed, not what you ultimately spend. 

The problem with your approach above is if you have 70k left on your cap, you could technically loan a player who is worth £400k per annum for two months. It is open to abuse.

Stanley is a TWP player, he can't go elsewhere and get a game. He counts in their squad and on their cap. 

[TBone]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose you are mixing two different ways of policing a cap though. It is your total cap value at any one time being policed, not what you ultimately spend. 

The problem with your approach above is if you have 70k left on your cap, you could technically loan a player who is worth £400k per annum for two months. It is open to abuse.

Stanley is a TWP player, he can't go elsewhere and get a game. He counts in their squad and on their cap. 

Agree

BUT IF TWP had contracted Stanley in a non-playing capacity,  e.g. as a coach,  until such time as his passport/visa issues were settled then his 'salary' would not count until he was registered as a player. At that point his cap value for the entire season would be applied. However they didn't.

[JonM]

3 hours ago, manu266 said:

I don't want to open a specific thread for this, but I was wondering how many countries or nations have hosted a SL game so far?

England and Wales of course (any games in Scotland or Ireland?), France, Australia, Spain.

Canada is coming in April, now Monaco could join the club in June (Catalans-Wolfpack).

There were 2 on-the-road games in Edinburgh (Tynecastle) and of course Magic Weekend has been at Murrayfield. Nothing in Ireland.

[Ackroman]

Without Toronto SL looks in a parlous state. Back when SL began we had 1 team from France and then 11 others spread over a much wider UK geographic, including London, Sheffield and Workington. There was so much promise in 1995.

Looking at SL now we have 2 teams nestling in the same metropolitan area of Wakefield and 2 teams in the Kingston upon Hull Area.

If SL wants to be relevant in the future this needs looking at much more seriously.

The strategy for expansion as we know doesn't exist but left to "natural" forces as it has been, the money has shrunk to a much narrower cohort, particularly as Toronto didn't get any.

Elstone has a job on because the power base in the game is with the clubs you can throw a blanket over and yet clubs like Newcastle, Coventry and the Cumbrian sides (plus others) offer the strategic expansion we need in the UK. I bet Elstone isn't thinking on those lines, he's probably simply trying to keep everyone happy but that's not the job of a chief exec is it?

So having a strategic thinker at the top of SL will never happen and therefore we have to rely on Toronto, New York, Ottawa and even Toulouse and the people who fund them, to make our game relevant in the Northern Hemisphere.

Without them, it's a disgrace and we have to put up with having a sock puppet as a figurehead to top it all off.

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Yes,  but the guiding principle through it all must be truth...the bold naked truth of it.   Some fans want TWP...others not...but the SL owners and their paid mouthpiece clearly hold a grudge against TWP and don't want them in SL...thats the truth of it plain and simple.

Surely you must agree.

Yep, I agree and if you recall I stated last year that through the murmurings coming through the grapevine, what is relevant though is how the count stacks up from the council of SL Bosses, if the statement that TWP and Catalan are guests of SLE and therefore are devoid of any voting rights then it only takes 6 Chairmen to make your life unpleasant.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

How is that abuse? Its spending the cap. If you choose to spend 70k on one player for 1 month or 2 players for 12 months it's still spending the cap.

Your 'live total cap value' is a meaningless figure. It bares no relationship to reality

As of right now, part of Torontos salary cap is taken up a player who cant play for them and two players who were playing for other teams 

Stanley is an existing TWP player, you don't get cap exemption for trying to navigate the quota system by getting a different visa. 

And there are clear ways of abusing the system with a system where it is just based on what you spend. I'm not sure if it was amended after the old short term deals, or whether this type of system was always in place. 

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, TBone said:

Agree

BUT IF TWP had contracted Stanley in a non-playing capacity,  e.g. as a coach,  until such time as his passport/visa issues were settled then his 'salary' would not count until he was registered as a player. At that point his cap value for the entire season would be applied. However they didn't.

I am right in saying that Stanley played for TWP last year aren't I or am I confusing him with another player? 

[TBone]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I am right in saying that Stanley played for TWP last year aren't I or am I confusing him with another player? 

He did. HFC played Ellis, I think it was Ellis - might have been someone else, in the season before he 'retired' but, when FC had a bad injury list Ellis put on the boots again and his entire salary (as a coach) was applied to the cap.

The rule does, as you hinted earlier, make a sort of provision for the Stanley situation...

3.1.1 (d) allows for written requests for dispensations  and states that the HDPGS will 'act reasonably, taking into account one or more' then a list of criteria. One of the potential criteria that might apply is '(i) the Club's Players being unavailable through injury, absence and/or termination'.

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Chris Taylor said:

This. 

They also fear New York, Ottawa and anybody else who wants to be a part of it. 

They need to embrace it if they really want the game to grow.

Bringing in NY, Ottawa and anybody else will not grow the game, it will be taking some more player's to a different venue to earn their money, growing the game is done by participation at all levels from introducing kids through junior, youth, senior and ultimately professional, can the sport wait long enough for these virgin area's to get up to speed on those front's if these new entities are somehow elevated to SL level.

It goes without saying there will be casualties along the way if they are accepted, yes I agree some clubs will be feared, but what do you want them to do, or should I say the owner's or board's who give their time and money for their own clubs cause, stand aside and say there you go take my place, do you think they should be like some medieval martyr giving up their existance? 

How would it benefit you personally Chris, would you and your club possibly be victim of a broad expansion excersize, or is it all seen as a positive in your world, if so why?

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

A good summary.

I'm just really struggling to see what he thinks the risks of TWP are. All the risk lies with Argyle. If he pulls the plug, we get a week's bad press and then the rest of the world moves on, and frankly that week won't add up to anywhere near the good publicity generated over the last few years. 

My concern is that the risk he - or more accurately his bosses the SL chairmen - really fears is that one of their own will have to make way for TWP or its successors. 

Say HKR finish bottom this year and Toulouse finish top. I can't see that standing, so maybe keeping casting shade on Toronto is necessary in case the chairmen themselves need to boot them out to save one of their own.

Your club is? Just curios.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Stanley isnt injured though is he.

Plus as he hasnt played yet there is no real need for him to be registered at all as of right now.

The rules regarding loans seem crazy. You could have 70k worth of cap space but couldnt loan two 40k players for a month

But is Stanley being payed? Player's are not on appearence money these day,  they are on contract they get paid when the don't play.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

But is Stanley being payed? Player's are not on appearence money these day,  they are on contract they get paid when the don't play.

He is a TWP player who can't sign for another SL club, so he should count on the cap. He is not eligible because of a business decision, not long term injury or similar. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

18 minutes ago, TBone said:

He did. HFC played Ellis, I think it was Ellis - might have been someone else, in the season before he 'retired' but, when FC had a bad injury list Ellis put on the boots again and his entire salary (as a coach) was applied to the cap.

The rule does, as you hinted earlier, make a sort of provision for the Stanley situation...

3.1.1 (d) allows for written requests for dispensations  and states that the HDPGS will 'act reasonably, taking into account one or more' then a list of criteria. One of the potential criteria that might apply is '(i) the Club's Players being unavailable through injury, absence and/or termination'.

 

 

Section 5.9 would have applied to Ellis ie from playing the first game his salary from the club would count on the cap for the remainder of the SC year

 5.9 Other Employees of the Club acting as Players  
 Where any employee of the Club (such as a coach or trainer) is selected to play for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match during the Salary Cap Year, he shall immediately be considered to be a ‘Player’ for the remaining period of the Salary Cap Year (irrespective of his primary duties to the Club and/or whether he plays for the Club in any other Salary Cap Relevant Match during the remainder of the Salary Cap Year). 
 
Comment to Clause 5.9:  Because the Club’s selection of an ordinary (i.e. non-Player) employee in a Salary Cap Relevant Match will vary the Club’s Aggregate Liability, the Club must first obtain the HDPGS’s express written approval of such conduct in accordance with Clause 6.1. 
 
As a starting point for determining that Player’s Salary Cap Value for the remainder of the Salary Cap Year, the HDPGS will use the remuneration entitlement of that Player under the terms of his basic employment contract with the Club and will apply such other principles as described in this Clause 5 as the HDPGS considers appropriate in all the circumstances.   

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

He is a TWP player who can't sign for another SL club, so he should count on the cap. He is not eligible because of a business decision, not long term injury or similar. 

That would also be my interpretation.

Through bad decisions/management on their playing roster TWP now find themselves in a desperate situation, financially we know they have no problem overcoming the errors they have made, but everyone including TWP are aware the rules prevent them from doing so, I can't believe that they were so naive that they did not envisage problems ahead, perhap's it was thought within their offices that they would automatically be given extraordinary allownces to assist them?

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

What does that matter? Gary Hetherington is being paid, his wages dont count on the cap

SC relates to player's contracts as you very well know, but  if you didn't you are now aware.

[Toby Chopra]

25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Your club is? Just curios.

Haven't got one cos I'm a southerner who grew up watching league on grandstand in 80s. Although I tend towards the northwest clubs cos I lived in Manchester for 5 years in 90s and went to most of them a few times. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Haven't got one cos I'm a southerner who grew up watching league on grandstand in 80s. Although I tend towards the northwest clubs cos I lived in Manchester for 5 years in 90s and went to most of them a few times. 

Thank you Toby, I was just wondering if your club could/would be affected by the NA 'expansion' programme.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

As of right now, Hetherington has played as many games this year as Stanley has

But Hetherington ain't signed a playing contract has he?

What I don't know - hopefully someone can advise - is Stanley in a new contract or in year 'X' of a multiple year contract. That information should settle your argument.

[Click]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

As of right now, Hetherington has played as many games this year as Stanley has

You're just being flippant. Stanley is signed to a professional contract, he has played for TWP last year, and was due to play this season until Toronto decided to change his visa and eligibility rules so he can fit under the cap. If they hadn't done that, he would be playing right now.

Stupidly comparing a player and a chairman is ridiculous