The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

It is true. Have you?

I had it in front of me when I wrote my post. 

It is possible to get players off your cap by loans, transfers, termination payments or dispensations. It's all written. 

[Man of Kent]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's an interesting sequence of events. 

TWP tried it on with SLE by spending around £4.5m on 23 players so they could get a cap increase. SLE said no.

They pushed it with the quota, and are now struggling to get Stanley a permit. 

Noble left the club shortly after trying to defend himself by saying they had been asking for dispensation for 18 months.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Noble has left.

That’s exactly what happened. The self-styled ‘rugby disrupters’ tried to disrupt but  can’t without permission so Noble carried the can.

How could anyone doubt it?

 

[Loup]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Well no, what is the root cause of why Chase Stanley can't play now for TWP when he did play for them last year? 

Chase Stanley has been using an Australian passport. He is attempting to get a Samoan passport, to which his nationality entitles him, so he counts as a KOLPAK player on the quota.

He was and still is on contract with TWP.

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Termination payments count on the cap. Its dealt with in section 6.1.2.

Dispensations, as discussed before, are going outside the rules by definition. If your defence of a rule is that we dont have to apply it. Its clearly not a great rule. 

Loans or Terminations would involve another club taking over Stanley's existing wage. Thats not something Toronto are in control of. 

 The termination payment won't necessarily be a full years salary. 

But I'm glad we are now agreed that there are ways to remove players from the cap and the full value won't remain exactly the same as you claimed. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Loup said:

Chase Stanley has been using an Australian passport. He is attempting to get a Samoan passport, to which his nationality entitles him, so he counts as a KOLPAK player on the quota.

He was and still is on contract with TWP.

I know, it may have been you explaining this previously tbh. 

I'm confused as to why him being on the cap is controversial. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

That’s exactly what happened. The self-styled ‘rugby disrupters’ tried to disrupt but  can’t without permission so Noble carried the can.

How could anyone doubt it?

 

To be fair, I don't have an issue with them trying it on and pushing the rules and limits. I'm OK with asking for forgiveness. 

But if it doesn't come off, you can look a bit silly. 

[Man of Kent]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

By re-engaging with reality?

A reasonably bright eight year-old could see it.

What I find interesting is Toronto think an Us vs Them, ‘rugby disrupters’ schtick - David Argyle’s apparent insult of Robert Elstone being the latest example - is a winning strategy. Beggars can’t be choosers.

[Man of Kent]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To be fair, I don't have an issue with them trying it on and pushing the rules and limits. I'm OK with asking for forgiveness. 

But if it doesn't come off, you can look a bit silly. 

On the Super League Show Noble looked every inch a man who was pushed out. Why would that be, I wonder?

[Ackroman]

3 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

So kick Cas and Wakey out and let Fev in. Simples.

No have an SL team representing the 3 clubs.

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

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

That's is the most stupid statement I've ever seen you post , and there have been some ' dooozuies in the past

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Ackroman said:

No have an SL team representing the 3 clubs.

Do you think Saints, Wigan and Wire should merge too? 

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, TBone said:

They were penalised for breaking them, in line with the rules.

Sir your patience has to be applauded, how you manged to keep in conversation with a certain poster re the Salary Cap all that time and not get annoyed is very commendable.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Its all going to work its way out...already has...time to move forward now....just another minor growing pain is all.  I can feel it...we are about to go on a good streak...its in the air....don't you sniff it?

No! Albeit watching HKR perfotm last night I consider you may just be getting a reprieve next week from your losing sequence.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Loup said:

Chase Stanley has been using an Australian passport. He is attempting to get a Samoan passport, to which his nationality entitles him, so he counts as a KOLPAK player on the quota.

He was and still is on contract with TWP.

Fom all accounts, when the UK leaves the EU at the very end of this year and freedom of  movement laws change for EU nationals coming to the UK, it is also for some reason going to affect the KOLPAK rulings, I do not know any further details it was something that was told to me, perhaps one of our better informed poster's can either affirm or deny that suggestion?

[LR23]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Fom all accounts, when the UK leaves the EU at the very end of this year and freedom of  movement laws change for EU nationals coming to the UK, it is also for some reason going to affect the KOLPAK rulings, I do not know any further details it was something that was told to me, perhaps one of our better informed poster's can either affirm or deny that suggestion?

The RFL is looking at the overseas quota/non fed trained rules to see if anything can be changed. Union and cricket are tweaking their rules apparently (essentially included Kolpak nationals in an expanded overseas quota) but as we have a team based in the EU I'm not sure that there is a great deal that can be done without either forcing them to breach EU caselaw (or at least push the boundaries of the caselaw)  or having one rule for them and another rule for the rest.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I’m aware of the discussions and aware of proposals which have to be ratified and shared with clubs.. we’ll see where that gets to. I think what we have to do is find the right solution for the club, but equally respect the cap that’s in place. Relegation is a factor and there’s a few clubs worried about where they will finish that are looking closely at this issue. It’s not an easy one. I have sympathy both ways but the whole thing will be resolved within a short space of time.”

When was this report dated, Is it new? If so.

This is the obvious course of action to take, like him or loath him lets consider for one minute that this is Mr Elstones call, technically he is representative of all the club's in SL he can't sway one way or the other in his decision, it seems and quite rightly so that it is going to be a decision of all the SL clubs and saying " the whole thing will be resolved within a short space of time" the majority vote wins the day.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Argyle’s apparent insult of Robert Elstone being the latest example - is a winning strategy. Beggars can’t be choosers.

That's exactly what I think when in the process of a game a section of the crowd for one team or the other in unison questions a referee's parentage or suggests he prefers mono sex, I think well thats really going to get the ref on their side? 

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, LR23 said:

The RFL is looking at the overseas quota/non fed trained rules to see if anything can be changed. Union and cricket are tweaking their rules apparently (essentially included Kolpak nationals in an expanded overseas quota) but as we have a team based in the EU I'm not sure that there is a great deal that can be done without either forcing them to breach EU caselaw (or at least push the boundaries of the caselaw)  or having one rule for them and another rule for the rest.

Sorry for asking for clarification but what are cricket and union essentially doing?

Yes, Catalan is going to be a problem, but so to will Toronto or any of the other mooted new NA teams won't they?

[LR23]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sorry for asking for clarification but what are cricket and union essentially doing?

Yes, Catalan is going to be a problem, but so to will Toronto or any of the other mooted new NA teams won't they?

I'm not 100% as I follow neither but I think the equivalent for rugby league would be to include the non fed trained players (which is used to get around the Kolpak caselaw) into the regular overseas quota. So we'd have a flat overseas quota of 7 (instead of the current 5) and drop the non fed trained quota. This would be in breach of the current Kolpak caselaw so after 2020 wouldn't be an issue here but would be in France.

Toronto and other overseas teams are a different issue (i.e. who counts as 'overseas' for them or non fed trained?).  The RFL appear to have winged it so far but will need to look at it again especially if New York come in.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You need to read the whole thing in context harry and your answer will be obvious

'The majority vote wins the day'is a dangerous principle for a club on the outside to support

But the majority vote is exactly what happened when SL were given the jurisdiction to abolish the 8's in favour of one up one down in '18, that they may have broke away from the RFL anyway doesn't matter, it was put to a democratic vote and the majority vote got passed.

This sequence of Toronto's SC cap issues will be done exactly by the same proceedure but by SL clubs only, and the fact that if affects other clubs is exactly the way it should be done.

[LR23]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The fed/none fed quota makes even less sense for Toronto where the kolpak ruling doesnt apply, they arent part of that federation and so needed dispensation for Canadian players while the same time we see criticism of them for not having canadian players and from taking out of the uk player pool 

Agree - see my last post. The RFL have been making it up as they go along there but need to think about it properly especially if teams from other countries come in.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

When was this report dated, Is it new? If so.

This is the obvious course of action to take, like him or loath him lets consider for one minute that this is Mr Elstones call, technically he is representative of all the club's in SL he can't sway one way or the other in his decision, it seems and quite rightly so that it is going to be a decision of all the SL clubs and saying " the whole thing will be resolved within a short space of time" the majority vote wins the day.

There are a couple of important points on this in the Salary Cap Regulations.

Firstly, on what TWP's cap is overall:

3.1.1 - A Club must ensure that, at any time during the Salary Cap Year it's aggregate liability does not exceed:

• a ) for British based clubs (or other clubs which pay their players in British Pounds) £2.1m .... (or an amount agreed at the start of the year by the British Clubs)
• b ) for clubs which pay their players in any other currency, such amount as determined prior to the SCY in question by the board of SLE.

It would be interesting to know whether TWP fall under a) or b ). If it is a ) then the starting point is clear. If not, then it is SLE's role to set the level, not the RFL's.

This then brings us onto requests for dispensation:

A club may seek prior dispensation in writing to the HDPGS to exceed the (limit) by a specified amount. In making a decision, the HDGPS will act reasonably, taking into account one or more of the following factors:

1. the Club's players being unavailable through injury, absence and/or termination.
2. player welfare...
3. other circumstances considered reasonable (by the HDGPS, acting reasonably)

I can see no requirement for approval from the SLE board for this dispensation. 

So it looks like the initial conversations that were ongoing were around the actual limit (weighting for London is in the regulations, set at 10% for example) and development dispensations have their own sections and are not down to HDGPS discrepancy. That would need to go to the SLE Board (the clubs) as it is a clear deviation from the £2.1m limit. 

It looks to me like these recent loan signings have perhaps gone through as part of 'normal' dispensation asks that are managed by the HDGPS, which means that these wouldn't need to go to SLE's board (unless it is stated elsewhere in the regs). It looks like it is pretty clear that there are grounds for a dispensation ask, and it would be hard to argue against some of it. I suggested a couple of weeks ago that they should probably go down the player welfare route, and last week they played Jon Wilkin, who had been ruled out injured. 

So it looks like they may be getting dispensation via the 'normal' route, but their challenge for a higher cap overall has been rebuffed. That feels like a relatively sensible position where we have landed, and conversations now should continue around the cap level for future years.

[Harry Stottle]

HDGPS? Please.

[Marty Funkhouser]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

No! Albeit watching HKR perfotm last night I consider you may just be getting a reprieve next week from your losing sequence.

They won't be playing them Harry... Challenge Cup and all that.