Jump to content
John Drake

The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Elstone would rather only pay lip service to expansion, by talking about the fantasy Manchester and Liverpool clubs. But apparently its Toronto that are spurious. 

He does seem a bit of a snake, I remember last year how he was taking credit for the Catalans game in Barcelona when he didn't have aowt to do with it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there’s a lot of things Elstone wants to do but the clubs keep blocking him. At the end of the day, he’s only a spokesman for the clubs.

RE: expansion, it’s been said before that there is no plan. Do SL get a say when the RFL accept a new team into the structure? What will the sport look like in 10 years time? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghost crayfish said:

I actually think elstone is right, in the sense that relying on the element of chance associated with p&r is not a very strategic way of going about expansion of this scale. That's not a criticism of Toronto, who have done remarkably well and have given Superleague a great boost, it's a criticism of the RFL. 

He is right, but his conclusion should still be more positive, that it is an opportunity that should be embraced and capitalised on instead of branding it spurious. 

It would be crazy if these other clubs bei g touted are not part of joined up agreements between the, RFL and SLE. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Any other exotic location?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

Robert Elstone is a truly embarrassing leader for northern hemisphere rugby league.

British rugby league has not had a leader of any quality since Richard Lewis left the RFL.

Richard Lewis's presence was a blessing to the game, but oh so short lived.

He's not the leader of northern hemisphere RL. It's not his job. 

  • Like 2

Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elstone has done some good things that SL needs to do.

The improvement of presentation, the increase in media around the game, the secondary stuff like documentaries and magazine shows, the branding is the best we have ever had.

The problem is, we all hope for a Bernie Ecclestone or Richard Lewis type leader who had an actual vision for the game and the personality to drive it forward and it's becoming clear and obvious that Elstone isnt that man. 

Anything large or blue sky seems either either missed or fumbled.

Folau was a needless mess SL caused itself

All the good headlines Toronto generated have been squandered and we are now needlessly squabbling about them

He keeps bringing expansion in to the conversation but just in vague nonsensical terms

It's only fair imo to give him more time go execute his vision but I've lost a bit of faith that he has a vision  for the game outside some of the low hanging fruit we have seen 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SL17 said:

If Wigan are paying their full wage, they won’t count on Toronto’s cap. If they are paying half! then half the value of the player will added to Toronto’s cap.

Go read the rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

I actually think elstone is right, in the sense that relying on the element of chance associated with p&r is not a very strategic way of going about expansion of this scale. That's not a criticism of Toronto, who have done remarkably well and have given Superleague a great boost, it's a criticism of the RFL. 

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the decisions that have been taken regarding TWP so far, even though some of it may be a bit mean-spirited and could have been done in different ways. But I fail to see any benefit from being negative about their involvement at all, and he has done it a couple of times now. 

From some of his early interviews, he was one of the main men responsible for the disastrous PSG team, and maybe that has scarred him, but he acknowledges that the PSG thing failed due to under-funding. Here we are with a private funding stream bigger than anything we have seen with previous SLE expansion teams and that still aint good enough. 

I just think he is too risk averse to be inspirational. Of course we know that TWP is a club built on sand foundations at the moment. If Argyle walks away in the short term there will be problems, but that is just part  of the risk of expansion teams. I don't think we need to overly worry about it, teams come and go in sport, I'd rather we were trying and failing than not trying at all.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Elstone would rather only pay lip service to expansion, by talking about the fantasy Manchester and Liverpool clubs. But apparently its Toronto that are spurious. 

He does seem a bit of a snake, I remember last year how he was taking credit for the Catalans game in Barcelona when he didn't have aowt to do with it. 

I don't think Everton fans shed any tears when he left them to join SL.

Share this post


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

Elstone has done some good things that SL needs to do.

The improvement of presentation, the increase in media around the game, the secondary stuff like documentaries and magazine shows, the branding is the best we have ever had.

The problem is, we all hope for a Bernie Ecclestone or Richard Lewis type leader who had an actual vision for the game and the personality to drive it forward and it's becoming clear and obvious that Elstone isnt that man. 

Anything large or blue sky seems either either missed or fumbled.

Folau was a needless mess SL caused itself

All the good headlines Toronto generated have been squandered and we are now needlessly squabbling about them

He keeps bringing expansion in to the conversation but just in vague nonsensical terms

It's only fair imo to give him more time go execute his vision but I've lost a bit of faith that he has a vision  for the game outside some of the low hanging fruit we have seen 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I just think he is too risk averse to be inspirational. Of course we know that TWP is a club built on sand foundations at the moment. If Argyle walks away in the short term there will be problems, but that is just part  of the risk of expansion teams. I don't think we need to overly worry about it, teams come and go in sport, I'd rather we were trying and failing than not trying at all.

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

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.

  • Like 2

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

I'm not 100% sure this is the issue. I also don't think we should give Elstone a free pass by saying he is just a mouthpiece for the clubs, maybe he just actually doesn't buy it. I think one area where TWP can be criticised is in some of the dealings they had. We know they have had issues with suppliers, not invested in Skolars as they said, not been forthcoming with a promised transfer fee that caused issues with a club, apparently weren't forthcoming on providing financial info that SLE wanted last year- I think it is feasible that Elstone just isn't impressed and is justifying why there is a somewhat cynical approach. 

But I'd rather that was dealt with behind the scenes. TWP are a Super League team this year and it is completely out of order for the SLE CEO to portray them negatively, as it would any other club. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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).

Any other exotic location?

  They have played Challenge Cup Finals,and a Magic Weekend at Murrayfield.Scotland.

   Toronto will NOT be playing elsewhere in Europe this year - https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/toronto-wolfpack-wont-play-home-games-on-the-road-in-europe-in-2020/ - so they said.

  

  

  • Thanks 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


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

I can understand the decisions that have been taken regarding TWP so far, even though some of it may be a bit mean-spirited and could have been done in different ways. But I fail to see any benefit from being negative about their involvement at all, and he has done it a couple of times now. 

From some of his early interviews, he was one of the main men responsible for the disastrous PSG team, and maybe that has scarred him, but he acknowledges that the PSG thing failed due to under-funding. Here we are with a private funding stream bigger than anything we have seen with previous SLE expansion teams and that still aint good enough. 

I just think he is too risk averse to be inspirational. Of course we know that TWP is a club built on sand foundations at the moment. If Argyle walks away in the short term there will be problems, but that is just part  of the risk of expansion teams. I don't think we need to overly worry about it, teams come and go in sport, I'd rather we were trying and failing than not trying at all.

I largely agree with this. 

If he is risk averse, fine. Dont spend money on it. I wouldnt agree with it but it's a logical train of thought.

But there are free things he can do which he hasnt (salary cap, exemption from relegation etc) for which there are only upside for SL. If Toronto fail there is no cost. If they succeed brilliant more revenue.

And even if they dont to do these free things, fine. It's short sighted and isnt a long term solution but it's at least a consistent plan.

What makes no sense is the talking them down. It gains nothing and damages the view of the game. Where is the benefit in his comments? Who and what are they for? 

It's an almost childish refusal to play with the hand he has been dealt. Toronto are in, make the best of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes 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. 

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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...