Jump to content
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Is given to the RFL as something akin to a solidarity payment (and some for services rendered)

And I have never said it should be kept by SL, you have made that up. I have simply said what it is. A payment from SL to the rest of the game. 

So the SL clubs, acting as SLE decide where the money goes?

Great, so I was right.

Share this post


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

So the SL clubs, acting as SLE decide where the money goes?

Great, so I was right.

Jesus christ that's a stretch. There is no such 'investment' just an allocation of tv revenue.

The situation you described simply didn't happen. 

There was no agreement for central distribution to go to the UK or france of anywhere else. It wasnt a case that a canadian club wasnt budgeted for because it isnt an investment it's a distribution of funds to shareholders. 

Edited by scotchy1

Share this post


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

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).

Well we shouldn't have to long to wait to see what, why and who is involved in the next TV contract negotiations, we are not that far from the present one terminating at the end of the 2021 season, surely there will be some protracted discussions before it is agreed unless Sky say this is it take it or leave it and it is the best offer on the table. 

It also seems logical to me to suggest that Mr Elstone will only be the go between for Leneghan, McManus and Co and the TV companies (whoever they may be), so lets consider that negotiations commence in middle of this year which seems a reasonable timescale, not to long after I think we will all be aware of what SL's intention is regarding structure, funding etc, and wether the TV company(s) agree with SL's proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Jesus christ that's a stretch. There is no such 'investment' just an allocation of tv revenue.

The situation you described simply didn't happen. 

There was no agreement for central distribution to go to the UK or france of anywhere else. It wasnt a case that a canadian club wasnt budgeted for because it isnt an investment it's a distribution of funds to shareholders. 

Well it did happen. They agreed distributions with zero going to Canada. 

The money being routed to the RFL and the lower divisions didn't just happen by accident.

IIRC you have been stating recently how London Broncos still hold their shares in SLE. Does that mean they are getting a distribution?

 

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


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

Well it did happen. They agreed distributions with zero going to Canada. 

The money being routed to the RFL and the lower divisions didn't just happen by accident.

 

No they didnt

And nobody said it happened by accident. 

The allocation of tv revenue isnt set out as an investment of X amount to england, y amount to france, z amount to the heartlands. Such a thing would be crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

No they didnt

And nobody said it happened by accident. 

The allocation of tv revenue isnt set out as an investment of X amount to england, y amount to france, z amount to the heartlands. Such a thing would be crazy.

It wouldn't be crazy, but I also didn't state that happened. 

I stated that when we agreed the distribution, Canada wasn't even on the table, so was not agreed as part of the distribution. We knew we had 1 French team in SL, we knew how much that cost. The financial planning clearly laid out where the funding would go. To then route £3.6m to Canada in the last 2 years of that deal is absolutely a change to plans and would need to be agreed.

And my evidence? They have decided not to invest in Canada.

Share this post


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

It wouldn't be crazy, but I also didn't state that happened. 

I stated that when we agreed the distribution, Canada wasn't even on the table, so was not agreed as part of the distribution. We knew we had 1 French team in SL, we knew how much that cost. The financial planning clearly laid out where the funding would go. To then route £3.6m to Canada in the last 2 years of that deal is absolutely a change to plans and would need to be agreed.

And my evidence? They have decided not to invest in Canada.

That's just circular nonsense. 

You have it completely ass-backwards and are describing a situation that just didnt happen and would be ridiculous.

The money distributed by SL to its shareholders isnt a targeted investment limited to certain areas. 

Its not even correct because we don't know how many clubs should in SL, we could have had 1, 2 or 0. 

Neil Hudgell has been quite clear at why the money hasnt been distributed to Toronto, it has nothing to do with it being pre-budgeted for 'investment' for the uk and it is apparently to be allocated to the other SL clubs to cover for the 'losses' they will make by playing against Toronto somehow. 

Edited by scotchy1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

That's just circular nonsense. 

You have it completely ass-backwards and are describing a situation that just didnt happen and would be ridiculous.

The money distributed by SL to its shareholders isnt a targeted investment limited to certain areas. 

So the Broncos have had a full share, as they are still shareholders of Super League?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Click said:

So the Broncos have had a full share, as they are still shareholders of Super League?

What is happening with the shareholding is an absolute mystery. Currently either London are shareholders and SL are in breach of the articles of association which not only give them the rights to but the obligation to play in SL, 

Or London arent shareholders, SLE havent updated companies house and are in breach of the articles of association by keeping David Hughes as a director and not transferring that directorship to Toronto. 

If we believe what we see, then currently the situation is that London are shareholders and should be playing in SL, Toronto arent and shouldnt, David Hughes is a director but shouldnt be and the allocation that should go to London has gone to the rest of the clubs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

What is happening with the shareholding is an absolute mystery. Currently either London are shareholders and SL are in breach of the articles of association which not only give them the rights to but the obligation to play in SL, 

Or London arent shareholders, SLE havent updated companies house and are in breach of the articles of association by keeping David Hughes as a director and not transferring that directorship to Toronto. 

If we believe what we see, then currently the situation is that London are shareholders and should be playing in SL, Toronto arent and shouldnt, David Hughes is a director but shouldnt be and the allocation that should go to London has gone to the rest of the clubs. 

Right, so the money that is being discussed is given from Sky to the SL clubs who decide where it should go? Not to the SL Shareholders.

Certainly sounds like investment.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

What is happening with the shareholding is an absolute mystery. Currently either London are shareholders and SL are in breach of the articles of association which not only give them the rights to but the obligation to play in SL, 

Or London arent shareholders, SLE havent updated companies house and are in breach of the articles of association by keeping David Hughes as a director and not transferring that directorship to Toronto. 

If we believe what we see, then currently the situation is that London are shareholders and should be playing in SL, Toronto arent and shouldnt, David Hughes is a director but shouldnt be and the allocation that should go to London has gone to the rest of the clubs. 

Which fills everybody with confidence that SL is capable of running SL 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kayakman,

                Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Kayakman,

                Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to.

It was hyperbole stating his desire for Leigh to join Toronto in the top flight.  

One I don't share but hey-oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TboneFromTO said:

It was hyperbole stating his desire for Leigh to join Toronto in the top flight.  

One I don't share but hey-oh.

Who do you want TB ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Click said:

Right, so the money that is being discussed is given from Sky to the SL clubs who decide where it should go? Not to the SL Shareholders.

Certainly sounds like investment.

Indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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 get your logic here Dave, and I certainly don't subscribe to the view that all expansion is inherently good. But I'm not sure we can so neatly divide money as being "invested in Canada" and "invested in the UK", and especially not neatly put the price tag on it that you do. When investment is hopefully generating returns, we also should consider where those returns are accruing. 

For instance, the vast majority of the TV money is spent on players' wages, and it's basically the same predominantly UK players whichever team is in SL. That won't change for years, if ever, so the pathway for British players to turn pro remains in place even with a foreign team. 

And after allowing him a team in Canada, the TWP's rich owner has stumped up to sign one of the world's biggest rugby players. Is that investment in Canada? Not to me, the vast benefit of that signing has been to boost the profile of British Rugby league. In fact the two RL biggest headlines this off season in British media have been due to overseas clubs. 

To work out the cost of giving the TWP a TV share, you have to work out the cost/benefits of the alternatives. 

Option A, would be SL would lose their unexpected freebie marketing budget. But would David Argyle just pocket the money? I doubt it. Perhaps he'd fund the coverage of more live games, benefitting us all. 

Option B, would be he pulls the plug. Which means a team like Fev or London ends up in SL, with fewer, cheaper Pro contacts overall, definitely no SBW, and fewer televised games. There might be a marginal boost in profile in those local areas, but it certainly didn't add up to much in London last year. 

There's loads of ways we could try to measure it, but giving TWP their TV money definitely doesn't equate to investing 1.8 mln in Canada. 

 

Edited by Toby Chopra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Toby Chopra said:

 

There's loads of ways we could try to measure it, but giving TWP their TV money definitely doesn't equate to investing 1.8 mln in Canada. 

 

I agree with the points you make in your post, and my point wasn't about whether we should pay TWP, but that it is a decision that should be made by SLE and they have every right to go how they have.

On this last point though, the £1.8m that we refer to is currently money that goes into the UK game. I don't really accept that it just goes on players. We could just as easily claim this money goes on all the other costs with running RL clubs, including community engagement, player development etc. 

If we start routing these £1.8m payments to overseas clubs then we need to look at how that affects all those areas in the UK. Now you may come to the decision that there are benefits for the comp overall and will have a net benefit on the UK game, that is where my head is, but even I will admit that is based on a long term play and a pretty big leap of faith. 

We already route £1.8m to France. If another £1.8m goes to Canada, then to Ottawa, then NYC - quite soon we could be paying £35m over 5 years overseas - we need to do that in a considers way, understanding how we will reap the commercial benefits. So far we have failed miserably to do that with Catalans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Click said:

Right, so the money that is being discussed is given from Sky to the SL clubs who decide where it should go? Not to the SL Shareholders.

Certainly sounds like investment.

No. Sky pay money for a product which belongs to SLE. The SL TV Rights. SLE then pay the RFL for services rendered and give some to the RFL to distribute to the lower leagues as something akin to a solidarity payment. 

The remainder is distributed to the shareholders of SLE unless they decide to do something else with it. It isnt an investment in them, it belongs to them. They could, if they wish, decide to spend the entire amount on hobnobs. 

SLE acts as an agent for the clubs to collect that money and distribute it to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I get your logic here Dave, and I certainly don't subscribe to the view that all expansion is inherently good. But I'm not sure we can so neatly divide money as being "invested in Canada" and "invested in the UK", and especially not neatly put the price tag on it that you do. When investment is hopefully generating returns, we also should consider where those returns are accruing. 

For instance, the vast majority of the TV money is spent on players' wages, and it's basically the same predominantly UK players whichever team is in SL. That won't change for years, if ever, so the pathway for British players to turn pro remains in place even with a foreign team. 

And after allowing him a team in Canada, the TWP's rich owner has stumped up to sign one of the world's biggest rugby players. Is that investment in Canada? Not to me, the vast benefit of that signing has been to boost the profile of British Rugby league. In fact the two RL biggest headlines this off season in British media have been due to overseas clubs. 

To work out the cost of giving the TWP a TV share, you have to work out the cost/benefits of the alternatives. 

Option A, would be SL would lose their unexpected freebie marketing budget. But would David Argyle just pocket the money? I doubt it. Perhaps he'd fund the coverage of more live games, benefitting us all. 

Option B, would be he pulls the plug. Which means a team like Fev or London ends up in SL, with fewer, cheaper Pro contacts overall, definitely no SBW, and fewer televised games. There might be a marginal boost in profile in those local areas, but it certainly didn't add up to much in London last year. 

There's loads of ways we could try to measure it, but giving TWP their TV money definitely doesn't equate to investing 1.8 mln in Canada. 

 

Exactly, trying to create a cost or profit centre out of 'canada' is a fools errand. The £1.8m isnt an investment, the distribution of TV money isnt an investment. 

SLE acts as agents for the club in collecting and distributing that money. As has always been the case, the shareholders can vote on the allocation of that money.

Share this post


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

I agree with the points you make in your post, and my point wasn't about whether we should pay TWP, but that it is a decision that should be made by SLE and they have every right to go how they have.

On this last point though, the £1.8m that we refer to is currently money that goes into the UK game. I don't really accept that it just goes on players. We could just as easily claim this money goes on all the other costs with running RL clubs, including community engagement, player development etc. 

If we start routing these £1.8m payments to overseas clubs then we need to look at how that affects all those areas in the UK. Now you may come to the decision that there are benefits for the comp overall and will have a net benefit on the UK game, that is where my head is, but even I will admit that is based on a long term play and a pretty big leap of faith. 

We already route £1.8m to France. If another £1.8m goes to Canada, then to Ottawa, then NYC - quite soon we could be paying £35m over 5 years overseas - we need to do that in a considers way, understanding how we will reap the commercial benefits. So far we have failed miserably to do that with Catalans. 

and yet that provision wasnt put on Toulouse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who do you want TB ?

Toulouse personally as a first choice, or Halifax as I enjoyed my matches at the Shay, or Oldham because I used to work there (as unlikely as that would be!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Kayakman,

                Please explain why Leigh belong in S.L. They were in S.L., they got relegated so are now in the Championship where they belong. Maybe at the end of this season they may get promoted. If they do get into S.L. that is where they will belong.At the end of the season wherever your club finishes is where they will belong. Pretty simple really. It is a long season,you will finish where you deserve to.

They belong in SL because we want to beat them again...there is no other team we like to play and beat more than Leigh....they are our true rival.  Leigh have never beaten Toronto but we have their number all right.....that is why I want Leigh in SL next year...we want to play and beat them AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....

That is why they belong in SL.

Edited by Kayakman

Share this post


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

I agree with the points you make in your post, and my point wasn't about whether we should pay TWP, but that it is a decision that should be made by SLE and they have every right to go how they have.

On this last point though, the £1.8m that we refer to is currently money that goes into the UK game. I don't really accept that it just goes on players. We could just as easily claim this money goes on all the other costs with running RL clubs, including community engagement, player development etc. 

If we start routing these £1.8m payments to overseas clubs then we need to look at how that affects all those areas in the UK. Now you may come to the decision that there are benefits for the comp overall and will have a net benefit on the UK game, that is where my head is, but even I will admit that is based on a long term play and a pretty big leap of faith. 

We already route £1.8m to France. If another £1.8m goes to Canada, then to Ottawa, then NYC - quite soon we could be paying £35m over 5 years overseas - we need to do that in a considers way, understanding how we will reap the commercial benefits. So far we have failed miserably to do that with Catalans. 

Again, I'd question your headline number of 35 mln being sent overseas. Put like that, it sound like an obviously barmy thing to do. But as before, I don't think the bald number tells us much. We have to do the cost/benenfit analysis each time. 

For instance, I wouldn't say Cats are a failure in terms of commercial benefit. In return for 1.8 million, Cats give us a financially strong SL club that can pay full cap with marquee players and (until this year) 13 extra live games to indirectly boost the value of the Sky deal, and keep us on British TVs. 

I'd suggest that there are currently no alternative British clubs that could deliver that outcome, even with a SL place and 1.8mln. None of the recently relegated SL clubs could. We shouldn't be looking at how much we can make from them, but be thankful they bring us one more financially strong club in a completion with a number of borderline basketcases. 

That said, the lack of a TV deal is a big negative for Cats and their value is a lot lower without it. 

I expect were approaching the point that further overseas team - without expansion or a TV deal - would be a a net negative. 

For sure, SLE should make the decision on a place, and on distribution. But I hope they consider all the factors, costs and benefits in such decisions. Elstone has been worryingly narrow in his assessment in my view, and I think he fails to fully see how his competition benefits from the overseas clubs we have now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...