The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

We will see friend, anyway I hope the new Frenchie trialist you have comes up to scratch and he can go forward and make a living from the game that is whether he proves himself good enough for Toronto or his future lies elsewhere

He will do well...don't worry...it will all work out in the end Harry.  Leigh will be back in SL again!

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

He will do well...don't worry...it will all work out in the end Harry.  Leigh will be back in SL again!

Maybe, but I was hoping to be playing you again next season, one of us is going to be dissapointed, as the leagues stand at the moment we find ourselves next to each other.

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

He will do well...don't worry...it will all work out in the end Harry.  Leigh will be back in SL again!

Leigh are my favs this year. They're on fire atm.....

Main challengers not as convincing just yet. Too early to speculate who they will replace

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Maybe, but I was hoping to be playing you again next season, one of us is going to be dissapointed, as the leagues stand at the moment we find ourselves next to each other.

You will be playing us next year Harry...don't fret.

[fairfolly]

In which division Kayakman. ?

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

In which division Kayakman. ?

The top division...where we both clearly belong!

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Nobody has suggested five years , except Mr Perez actually , what Harry , myself and others have queired is just how many other non player producing areas we can support without diluting the pool ?

Depends on how you view the pool I suppose, also depends how the money saved by TWP not getting their share of SL funding is spent. 

What I think we all agree on is that the pool needs expanding (or at least being less vulnerable due to its concentration) and having a broader base for the sport is essential for that.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Who, but new clubs in new areas expands that pool?

The likes of Leigh or Halifax would just be taking the 4th or 5th choice (at best) youngsters from the same areas.

If we.are going to insist on the player pool being a consideration for toronto then it is for everyone and that would mean there are only 3 clubs in with a shout of joining SL, Toulouse, newcastle and london. Everyone else will dilute the pool 

 

I don't disagree. Its very often a case of people in Glass houses.

The game here in England is vulnerable whilst it is concentrated - particularly at the amateur and youth level.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Robin Evans said:

Leigh are my favs this year. They're on fire atm.....

Main challengers not as convincing just yet. Too early to speculate who they will replace

We've not beaten anybody yet 

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If I were to say that we should only have big teams in SL you would tell us that we would only have 6 or 7 clubs. 

If we only have player producing clubs that figure would only slightly higher. 

If not producing players is a reason to exclude Toronto it's even more of a reason to exclude Leigh or halifax or batley etc. 

Where have I said Toronto should be excluded ?

[GUBRATS]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Depends on how you view the pool I suppose, also depends how the money saved by TWP not getting their share of SL funding is spent. 

What I think we all agree on is that the pool needs expanding (or at least being less vulnerable due to its concentration) and having a broader base for the sport is essential for that.

Agree , and why they haven't received the central funding is appalling 

[GUBRATS]

33 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Who, but new clubs in new areas expands that pool?

The likes of Leigh or Halifax would just be taking the 4th or 5th choice (at best) youngsters from the same areas.

If we.are going to insist on the player pool being a consideration for toronto then it is for everyone and that would mean there are only 3 clubs in with a shout of joining SL, Toulouse, newcastle and london. Everyone else will dilute the pool 

 

You confuse clubs with area's , again , as you always do when petty point scoring , grow up and join the debate or don't even bother 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Agree , and why they haven't received the central funding is appalling 

Its combining long and short terms aims I guess. 

If the funding is being used centrally by SL to produce a lot of this fresh new content and branding (which is clearly designed with a younger audience in mind) at least I can see its being put to good use, rather than being divvied out to the other clubs.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its combining long and short terms aims I guess. 

If the funding is being used centrally by SL to produce a lot of this fresh new content and branding (which is clearly designed with a younger audience in mind) at least I can see its being put to good use, rather than being divvied out to the other clubs.

The challenge is that this isn't what the central distribution had been budgeted for. 

In the last TV deal it was agreed that each SL club would get £1.8m (for arguments sake). So 11 x UK clubs, equals £19.8m per year of TV money being invested in UK RL. The clubs aren't pilfering this money away, nobody is making money from RL. 

Once we end up with another overseas team, we then route £1.8m of that money outside of UK RL. That needs to be agreed. I have no issues with the decision being that in this round of TV deal the budgeted £19.8m per year will continue. 

People need to be very careful what they are arguing for - if TWP are in SL for 10 years, and the TV money stays the same, the argument is for the UK game to invest almost £20m over a 10 year period into Canada RL. Before TWP were mentioned I don't think anybody thought that was a good idea. 

I'm not sure why there is a belief that giving the money to TWP would be great and the right thing to do, and that the money going to the 11 existing clubs would be wasted and not deliver any benefits for the game in this country. Maybe this additional £120k or so will deliver more marketing, player development etc. 

We really need to get away from this "heartland = bad" narrative that is being created. It is no more backward than "expansion = bad". That point isn't aimed at you personally by the way Tommy.

[Szymala]

2 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

Leigh are my favs this year. They're on fire atm.....

Main challengers not as convincing just yet. Too early to speculate who they will replace

London Broncos are coming back. Danny Ward has the secret formula.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The challenge is that this isn't what the central distribution had been budgeted for. 

In the last TV deal it was agreed that each SL club would get £1.8m (for arguments sake). So 11 x UK clubs, equals £19.8m per year of TV money being invested in UK RL. The clubs aren't pilfering this money away, nobody is making money from RL. 

Once we end up with another overseas team, we then route £1.8m of that money outside of UK RL. That needs to be agreed. I have no issues with the decision being that in this round of TV deal the budgeted £19.8m per year will continue. 

People need to be very careful what they are arguing for - if TWP are in SL for 10 years, and the TV money stays the same, the argument is for the UK game to invest almost £20m over a 10 year period into Canada RL. Before TWP were mentioned I don't think anybody thought that was a good idea. 

I'm not sure why there is a belief that giving the money to TWP would be great and the right thing to do, and that the money going to the 11 existing clubs would be wasted and not deliver any benefits for the game in this country. Maybe this additional £120k or so will deliver more marketing, player development etc. 

We really need to get away from this "heartland = bad" narrative that is being created. It is no more backward than "expansion = bad". That point isn't aimed at you personally by the way Tommy.

I don't disagree Dave, such a dichotomy is unhelpful and not really necessary in many respects. 

[GUBRATS]

Dave , to me they earned the money by being promoted , simple as 

We are a sport , too much enfasis on what clubs contribute off field 

[GUBRATS]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

You said we needed to how many of those teams we could let in before they dilute the pool. I used Toronto ana stand in for those teams

And I also said we can stand the 20 they've so far taken , but need to be careful just how many more can be accomadated , this time preferably before they enter the structure , so down to SL right now to decide what they want 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Areas dont play pro RL, clubs do 

If you want clubs and areas to be distinct rather than interchangeable then the fact they play RL in Leight the area is irrelevant to Leigh the club 

Either way the point remains, there are only three clubs outside SL who will make a real tangible difference to the pro player pool. London, newcastle and Toulouse. 

The areas where those clubs are located are already producing players , yes they might produce more if they make SL , just like Batley , Halifax or Rochdale , or they might not 

[The Future is League]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But they wont, because they dont run academies. You yourself have argued why it would be a waste of time and money to do so. 

In my opinion  clubs should spent more money on junior development and less on has been's and never was players from the NRL 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, The Future is League said:

In my opinion  clubs should spent more money on junior development and less on has been's and never was players from the NRL 

Which clubs and how ?

[GUBRATS]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But they wont, because they dont run academies. You yourself have argued why it would be a waste of time and money to do so. 

Old argument , how many academies will the RFL allow ?

Last time some Championship clubs tried to run them , there was not enough opposition to play , so please enlighten everybody on how you suggest it should work 

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Dave , to me they earned the money by being promoted , simple as 

We are a sport , too much enfasis on what clubs contribute off field 

The TV money is less about what is earned on the field though. The money is split as an investment in certain areas - i.e. we pay the RFL to cover costs. We split money across lower divisions to support development. When agreeing the last funding model, there was no agreement to invest central funding into Canada - it would have been seen as a ludicrous thing to do.

Of course that shows the issues about rushing things in in the middle of a TV deal, but if TWP were prepared to self-fund what was there to lose?

The next negotiations are the ones where TWP (and other potential clubs) should be wrapped up in (or excluded from, as per whatever the agreement is).

[Lowdesert]

Another Groundhog Day

[GUBRATS]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Its your assertion that there is a limit of numbers of clubs we can have

Academies was the question ? , How many academies ? , And last time what happened ?