Jump to content

Toronto Wolfpack revival begins as officials line up return this year


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Fair enough, TWP were the story and SBW the big signing, I expect Inglis to fill that content this year. 

My point is though that it isn't the city name that was driving that interest. As proven by the fact that London weren't given the same coverage the year earlier. I think we agree on that. 

I pretty much agree with most of that, although I would suggest that the big city name of Toronto was a very significant factor. It attracted interest internationally, and perhaps in UK terms, the recurring theme of a London team's potential had become rather jaded to many. 

Whatever current perceptions are, the prospect of significant numbers of big city teams in the top leagues remain.

Edited by Manxmanc
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Me and my crew will be there come hell or high water.

Hope that they can keep a team together in Toronto.  Covid has affected everybody all round the world.  If it means stepping back to championship, league one or even USARL it will be a massi

Count on me and my posse being there....

Posted Images

52 minutes ago, westlondonfan said:

The other problem is that the big clubs and/or the RFL are happy to let the expansion clubs go as soon as they experience any real problems.

In this case they weren't a strategic expansion club... they merely popped up and allowed in... maybe just to see how it went and if any substance.

Not surprising in this case other clubs and administrators of RL didn't get fully behind. Even though I took a positive interest in Toronto being in the leagues here it never made an iota of sense to have NA club - that is as other commentators seem to think that unless you supported them in everyway they decide you are some sort of bitter little M62 idiot.  For that reasons it seems impossible to have a proper debate on the wider merits or not of expansion into other countries that have never had any  RL in reality against countries that have.

As to expansion previously and those in which RFL/clubs strategically planned yep I would agree with your final sentence

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

The city name alone won't guarantee coverage that's true but combined with a bit of imagination and creative publicity, then it's a different matter.

Greg Inglis is a very fine player, it goes without saying. But no way will he generate the same amount of publicity that SBW did. He's very much a legend within RL specifically. 

Of course, but had Warrington signed SBW they would have got the same coverage. I've made my point before about missing out on a trick with big Union signings, the coverage the likes of Davies got us was bigger than any internal signings, but they also come with a huge bill and a lot of risk. 

Warrington got a lot of coverage for the Burrell signing, a player who played a small handful of games. 

Didn't Pearson at Hul claim we were going to go big on Union signings? That worked, didn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Manxmanc said:

I pretty much agree with most of that, although I would suggest that the big city name of Toronto was a very significant factor. It attracted interest internationally, and perhaps in UK terms, the recurring theme of a London team's potential had become rather jaded to many. 

Whatever current perceptions are, the prospect of significant numbers of big city teams in the top leagues remain.

Yeah, I'm not saying big city names are not important (or can be), my point is more that the core basics need to be strong, look at Paris for example - they had the PSG brand but were a shell of a club, got some headlines and went away. 

London are frustratingly small time. 

It is often touted that Salford should become Manchester etc. I think it misses the point somewhat. 

I always think a new team attached to a big city is important though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

In this case they weren't a strategic expansion club... they merely popped up and allowed in... maybe just to see how it went and if any substance.

Not surprising in this case other clubs and administrators of RL didn't get fully behind. Even though I took a positive interest in Toronto being in the leagues here it never made an iota of sense to have NA club - that is as other commentators seem to think that unless you supported them in everyway they decide you are some sort of bitter little M62 idiot.  For that reasons it seems impossible to have a proper debate on the wider merits or not of expansion into other countries that have never had any  RL in reality against countries that have.

As to expansion previously and those in which RFL/clubs strategically planned yep I would agree with your final sentence

I agree TWP are/were a non strategic expansion club, but that is partly because SL do not have an expansion strategy of any sort for any location and haven't had for a number of years. It's been about protectionism ever since they went down to 12 sides.

Re your M62 idiot point, I think one of the reasons people have sympathy for and defend TWP, myself included, is that they never got a share of funding. Yes, I know they accepted the terms, but it was still morally wrong to me. I have exactly the same sympathy for Leigh being short changed by SL this year as well.

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

Of course, but had Warrington signed SBW they would have got the same coverage. I've made my point before about missing out on a trick with big Union signings, the coverage the likes of Davies got us was bigger than any internal signings, but they also come with a huge bill and a lot of risk. 

Warrington got a lot of coverage for the Burrell signing, a player who played a small handful of games. 

Didn't Pearson at Hul claim we were going to go big on Union signings? That worked, didn't it? 

Genuine question, and I'm not trying to be facetious, would they? Would Warrington have catered to the London media by hosting his signing reveal in the Capital for example? Would they have generated news in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post?

That's before getting to the obvious point that Warrington didn't sign him and thus gave up their chance to find out. FWIW I actually think Warrington are the one club most likely to adopt some of the Wolfpack's ideas.

On Hull yes its laughable, because they only signed one from the Army Sevens team who has gone to the European cup with Bristol. That said though Pearson's management of that club leaves lots to be desired so I take that statement with a major pinch of salt.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommygilf said:

Genuine question, and I'm not trying to be facetious, would they? Would Warrington have catered to the London media by hosting his signing reveal in the Capital for example? Would they have generated news in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post?

That's before getting to the obvious point that Warrington didn't sign him and thus gave up their chance to find out. FWIW I actually think Warrington are the one club most likely to adopt some of the Wolfpack's ideas.

On Hull yes its laughable, because they only signed one from the Army Sevens team who has gone to the European cup with Bristol. That said though Pearson's management of that club leaves lots to be desired so I take that statement with a major pinch of salt.

There may be different techniques but SBW is a unique Rugby player and attracts attention no matter what he does, so yes I believe the coverage would have been similar. 

Whilst some people may be impressed with a press conference in London, others may ask why it wasn't in Toronto. 

The South China Morning Post sounds interesting. Ultimately the question comes back to for what benefit?

SBW was a signing that fit into TWPs strategy perfectly, he and them were in a unique position and it could have been a great move without Covid. 

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

Of course, but had Warrington signed SBW they would have got the same coverage. I've made my point before about missing out on a trick with big Union signings, the coverage the likes of Davies got us was bigger than any internal signings, but they also come with a huge bill and a lot of risk. 

Warrington got a lot of coverage for the Burrell signing, a player who played a small handful of games. 

Didn't Pearson at Hul claim we were going to go big on Union signings? That worked, didn't it? 

With all due respect, Warrington wouldn't have generated the publicity that happened by SBW signing for Toronto. 

Edited by Johnoco
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Damien said:

Literally every post has been positive bar a handful from the same poster, repeating what he has already said countless times before.

The manifestation of envy is so ugly

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

I agree TWP are/were a non strategic expansion club, but that is partly because SL do not have an expansion strategy of any sort for any location and haven't had for a number of years. It's been about protectionism ever since they went down to 12 sides.

Re your M62 idiot point, I think one of the reasons people have sympathy for and defend TWP, myself included, is that they never got a share of funding. Yes, I know they accepted the terms, but it was still morally wrong to me. I have exactly the same sympathy for Leigh being short changed by SL this year as well.

yep and I realise going around old arguments but if RL had an expansion strategy, say a few years ago, I don't think anyone on here would have been saying... yeah lets put all available resources into Canada..  That's the problem I have with the whole for/against Toronto.  

Put a pin in a world map and that's about what a few years ago putting Toronto into SL/RFL league structure was the equivalent of... talking strategically... of course could have got media attention if the pin chose Nigeria, or Ukraine...

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

With all due respect, Warrington wouldn't have generated the publicity that happened by SBW signing for Toronto. 

That isn't based on anything. The headlines and coverage came from signing the biggest name in Rugby. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

With all due respect, Warrington wouldn't have generated the publicity that happened by SBW signing for Toronto. 

personally I think any SL signing SBW would have got my big attention and I suspect media and everyone else's.

On something that is impossible to prove we shall have to differ...

As always one as to put a comment to say that doesn't mean that once in I didn't want Toronto to succeed - otherwise you get idiotic assumptions about being a M62 hater, envious, or an uneducated idiot on par with a Brexit supporter because one doesn't agree with someone....

Edited by redjonn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Would be amazing to see TW return...

A revitalised Toronto/London/Bradford, Ottawa, Newcastle, York, possibly Toulouse... plus a few good quality M62 based teams all in the Championship... 

... that would be a better offer to TV companies in the future.

(We can all dream!)

Sounds more glamorous than the current SuperLeague

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other huge story last year where coverage went outside of the normal boundaries was Folau. Again, the coverage wasn't something that Catalans drove, it was something that came with the player. 

TWP signed SBW exactly because it would get them this coverage. 

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

Absolutely, and thus I put forward my position on that as not wishing to engage further. Thank you for agreeing that was right!

Harry's had a whiff of the laudanum I reckon, any more and parky will be out. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to quote the 100 page reference.

If it does, then it gives further support to the view that TWP is box office, not bad for a club whose existence is hanging on a thread.

This might be tempting fate, and actually attract the fiercer keyboard warrior, but this revival thread has seen a reasonably mature discussion to date, with good contributions reflecting differing viewpoints.

Edited by Manxmanc
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There may be different techniques but SBW is a unique Rugby player and attracts attention no matter what he does, so yes I believe the coverage would have been similar. 

Whilst some people may be impressed with a press conference in London, others may ask why it wasn't in Toronto. 

The South China Morning Post sounds interesting. Ultimately the question comes back to for what benefit?

SBW was a signing that fit into TWPs strategy perfectly, he and them were in a unique position and it could have been a great move without Covid. 

To some extent yes, but Toronto (and by extension Super League and Sky Sports) worked to maximise the impact of that signing beyond any signing in RL in the Super League era. That is how they boost the profile by making it easy for media. Equally I think the point is that Warrington didn't make that signing and perhaps only Wigan or Leeds Rhinos or maybe St Helens at a push have the general mass popular recognition to carry the media attention of a signing like that. 

On your second point, absolutely nobody was left asking why it wasn't in Warrington (or Rochdale where they were UK based), which is kind of the point Super League are slowly waking up to with their delocalised branding strategy. Equally, given a non covid affected season I would have expected a big "relaunch" in Toronto too as part of their home opener, so that is a total red herring. 

Like I said, Warrington are the team I most expect to follow some of Toronto's ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Harry's had a whiff of the laudanum I reckon, any more and parky will be out. 

Nah he'll be saving it for round 7 of Super League I reckon!

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

The other problem is that the big clubs and/or the RFL are happy to let the expansion clubs go as soon as they experience any real problems.

Absolutely 

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

IMHO (For what its worth:) if this proposed match is a lead in to the Wolfpack coming back the following season in the Championship or League 1then it makes sense to engage with the fans.

If not its pointless.

 

Paul 

Is it pointless if their intention is to play in/promote the Canadian RL or the USARL or some other goal that we are totally unaware of?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

To some extent yes, but Toronto (and by extension Super League and Sky Sports) worked to maximise the impact of that signing beyond any signing in RL in the Super League era. That is how they boost the profile by making it easy for media. Equally I think the point is that Warrington didn't make that signing and perhaps only Wigan or Leeds Rhinos or maybe St Helens at a push have the general mass popular recognition to carry the media attention of a signing like that. 

On your second point, absolutely nobody was left asking why it wasn't in Warrington (or Rochdale where they were UK based), which is kind of the point Super League are slowly waking up to with their delocalised branding strategy. Equally, given a non covid affected season I would have expected a big "relaunch" in Toronto too as part of their home opener, so that is a total red herring. 

Like I said, Warrington are the team I most expect to follow some of Toronto's ideas.

Could Warrington take on Wolf Grooming?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't post my reaction to this ' news '  quite simply because even if I post a positive opinion , there would be what would be deemed a negative aspect to it as well , which would then ' pidgeon hole ' me as a member of the M 62 ' lot ' 🤐

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

I won't post my reaction to this ' news '  quite simply because even if I post a positive opinion , there would be what would be deemed a negative aspect to it as well , which would then ' pidgeon hole ' me as a member of the M 62 ' lot ' 🤐

Which really is annoying

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...