Do ex Toronto fans still watch ?

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The ultimate challenge here is that TWP were not being run as a sustainable business, they were spending millions and millions of dollars to be what they were (which isn't a problem, they were still in the investment phase as a business), but once Argyle went then they become a very different thing. 

It wasn't Argyle's heavily funded TWP that was rejected, it was a guy who wanted to sell Toiletries. 

How many Rugby League clubs are run as a sustainable business?

[Damien]

Just now, Dave T said:

If you aren't prepared to read posts, and debate normally, just looking for gotchas then I'm not interested. 

Steve made a couple of posts that were lengthy and made good points, but you call out one line (which is factually true) and describe that as a pile on and claim it is multiple posts. 

Happy to leave this discussion here. 

It was you who tried to look for a gotcha. It's all there Dave for anyone to view, the context of the posts from several posters is quite clear. You are trying to move the goalposts now and make it about a quote which is odd to say the least. It was mentioned and insinuated several times, I just gave you one example after you made a false claim. As I said don't be surprised when people have alternative views and don't see things as you do.

Yes let's move on.

[Dave T]

Just now, The Future is League said:

How many Rugby League clubs are run as a sustainable business?

If they have a backer prepared to pay their bills, that is sustainable. 

As long as Argyle was at TWP and paying, things were great (ignoring any quibbles about business practices, that's between him and suppliers). 

 

[The Future is League]

3 hours ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Quite correct.

Seems that tgg will forever remain on the m62 corridor.

Which it gives it limited appeal here and a diminishing TV contract.

[The Future is League]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Toronto isn't in the US.

HTH.

I didn't say it was in my post

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The ultimate challenge here is that TWP were not being run as a sustainable business, they were spending millions and millions of dollars to be what they were (which isn't a problem, they were still in the investment phase as a business), but once Argyle went then they become a very different thing. 

It wasn't Argyle's heavily funded TWP that was rejected, it was a guy who wanted to sell Toiletries. 

Well Dave, that's certainly an interesting interpretation.

The rejection of TWP was a matter of perfume and soap.

And here was me thinking it was about Northern RL being unable to cope with eveything including ambition, vision, goals and plans.

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The NRL/ARL have made expansion teams fund travel. I wouldn't be surprised if we copied that model off them. 

It is also quite rare for expansion teams to be added in with no financial input. 

The model could have its uses if expansion teams are well funded in the first place.

If well funded groups or individuals turn up the TWP experience will be what they can refer to to ascertain the possibilities, inroads and ambition of the sport. Any serious body would do due diligence which may well include examining fan social media etc. Now, as a prospective investor, what conclusion would you come to, given all that evidence?

Edited May 1, 2022 by Oxford

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

Well Dave, that's certainly an interesting interpretation.

The rejection of TWP was a matter of perfume and soap.

And here was me thinking it was about Northern RL being unable to cope with eveything including ambition, vision, goals and plans.

The problem with that interpretation is that it does rather ignore the fact that Toronto actually existed at all. Surely an organisation with none of those things wouldn't even have entertained them. Or Toulouse. Or Catalans. Or Gateshead. Or PSG. 

People do like to ignore the fact that as long as TWP had funding, they got the nod. When their rich backer left, they didn't. It isn't that complicated tbh. 

[Oxford]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The problem with that interpretation is that it does rather ignore the fact that Toronto actually existed at all. Surely an organisation with none of those things wouldn't even have entertained them. Or Toulouse. Or Catalans. Or Gateshead. Or PSG. 

People do like to ignore the fact that as long as TWP had funding, they got the nod. When their rich backer left, they didn't. It isn't that complicated tbh. 

But that also ignores the fact that there was a real sense of relief and even rejoicing when they disappeared; and the level of critism aimed at them even when they were well funded is clear on this very forum.

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Oxford

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

But that also ignores the fact that there was a real sense of relief and even rejoicing when they disappeared; and the level of critism aimed at them even when they were well funded is clear on this very forum.

 

Well I'm not sure how we measure a 'sense of relief' over cold hard votes and games played. 

People are over sensitive to any criticism around TWP, it's interesting they don't take the same approach with Leigh, who came up in this thread almost instantly. 

[The Future is League]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Well I'm not sure how we measure a 'sense of relief' over cold hard votes and games played. 

People are over sensitive to any criticism around TWP, it's interesting they don't take the same approach with Leigh, who came up in this thread almost instantly. 

Remind me who replaced Toronto in Super League and how many new fans and sponsors did they bring with them?

Was the latest TV deal with sky up or down from the Previous deal?

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, The Future is League said:

Remind me who replaced Toronto in Super League and how many new fans and sponsors did they bring with them?

Was the latest TV deal with sky up or down from the Previous deal?

 

If you want to discuss Leigh, start a thread and knock yourself out. 

I assume you were buzzing about the game for the 20 years previous to 2021 when the TV deals were increasing? 

[The Future is League]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If you want to discuss Leigh, start a thread and knock yourself out. 

I assume you were buzzing about the game for the 20 years previous to 2021 when the TV deals were increasing? 

Answer the question

[Dave T]

Just now, The Future is League said:

Answer the question

You seem nice.

[The Future is League]

Dave T, Why wont you answer my question. Is it a case of the truth hurts you?

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Oxford said:

But that also ignores the fact that there was a real sense of relief and even rejoicing when they disappeared; and the level of critism aimed at them even when they were well funded is clear on this very forum.

It does. I knew this thread would go from its intention of do ex Toronto fans still watch the game awfully quickly. And it did.

I think SL has a major issue in the way it sets promoted teams up to fail. I also think the sport and SL has an issue with how it supports expansion teams where some want them treated differently to existing teams.

This debate seems to revolve around those that believe teams should have equal funding and the best chance to grow and develop, whether that is Toronto, Toulouse or Leigh and those that don't. We either want promoted clubs to have the best chance of succeeding in SL or not. I'm firmly in the camp that every SL team should have equal funding, we should either do P&R properly or not at all as there is little point otherwise.

I see teams like Toronto and Toulouse getting funding as a SL team as an investment to make SL bigger and better. I don't see it as a handout. They are not getting anything extra or special. I certainly think there is a huge disconnect between the RFL trying to grow the game, which I think they should do as the lead governing body in the northern hemisphere, and SL clubs concerned about their own backyard. It's in SL's collective interests to get bigger and better but it's not actually in some clubs interests and that's a huge problem.

One thing I am sure of is that the sport gets nothing from setting teams up to fail and making it as difficult as possible to succeed. That just seems to result in a charade and much wasted money and years where little changes. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Damien

[Oxford]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well I'm not sure how we measure a 'sense of relief' over cold hard votes and games played. 

People are over sensitive to any criticism around TWP, it's interesting they don't take the same approach with Leigh, who came up in this thread almost instantly. 

Do we need a measure of things that took place, a numerical evaluation of how true something can be said to be?

I don't think people were necessarily over sensitive so much as alot of the criticism was unnecessary and burdened with far too many out of date ideas.

But the point about prospective investors still applies just as much do TWP fand still watch .... Would you?

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I think SL has a major issue at the in the way it sets promoted teams up to fail.

And looking at the experience of TWP, its adiministrators and fans will alway be a blueprint of what you can expect and it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that was the aim all along.

The fans of TWP could be forgiven if they have nothing good to say about RL and the damage done in Canada for the future of RL will be assessed by no one.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Do we need a measure of things that took place, a numerical evaluation of how true something can be said to be?

I don't think people were necessarily over sensitive so much as alot of the criticism was unnecessary and burdened with far too many out of date ideas.

But the point about prospective investors still applies just as much do TWP fand still watch .... Would you?

Using facts is quite important. The RFL and clubs voting TWP into the comp, and ultimately SL is on record as happening, just saying there was a sense of relief when they left is pure unquantifiable opinion. 

Initiatives like TWP are controversial. We shouldn't get upset about that. This isn't necessarily about outsiders (I know some RL fans love to self loathe and portray RL fans as backwards), it is about how we do things and whether they make sense. But even where people don't like them, thats OK, they are perfectly entitled to feel like that. 

I mean let's be honest, I'm seen as anti-TWP here and being asked to justify Leigh FFS for the simple fact that I can understand why TWP weren't allowed back in when Argyle left and took TWP out of SL. 

My view on expansion is that if someone is prepared to fund it, we should embrace every opportunity. That includes TWP, if a genuine backer wanted to bring them back from the dead and could provide guarantees, I'd let them in for 2023 if they could be ready. I support every bit of expansion and buy I to the arguments put forward by most others here. Literally the one area we disagree is that I only believe these things should be done with correct funding, and not fantastical claims about huge NA markets. 

Without proper funding, we get PSG. I was perfectly happy with Argyle funding TWP, even though I may not like his manner or some of his approach, but once he decided he could no longer fund it, that changes things hugely. I suspect a club like TWP would probably need to be propped up for 10 to 20 years, and that funding would need to be private. 

But to your final point, I suspect the TWP fans were much the same as Northern English fans. Without a club I suspect they busy themselves with other things. 

[Tommygilf]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The problem with that interpretation is that it does rather ignore the fact that Toronto actually existed at all. Surely an organisation with none of those things wouldn't even have entertained them. Or Toulouse. Or Catalans. Or Gateshead. Or PSG. 

People do like to ignore the fact that as long as TWP had funding, they got the nod. When their rich backer left, they didn't. It isn't that complicated tbh. 

That is a very binary (and flawed imo) way to look at it.

It was an undeniably controversial inclusion. How much of every decision from their inclusion to their demise was politics between the various players and stakeholders I suspect may never emerge either.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Damien said:

 

I think SL has a major issue in the way it sets promoted teams up to fail. I also think the sport and SL has an issue with how it supports expansion teams where some want them treated differently to existing teams.

This debate seems to revolve around those that believe teams should have equal funding and the best chance to grow and develop, whether that is Toronto, Toulouse or Leigh and those that don't. We either want promoted clubs to have the best chance of succeeding in SL or not. I'm firmly in the camp that every SL team should have equal funding, we should either do P&R properly or not at all as there is little point otherwise.

I see teams like Toronto and Toulouse getting funding as a SL team as an investment to make SL bigger and better. I don't see it as a handout. They are not getting anything extra or special. I certainly think there is a huge disconnect between the RFL trying to grow the game, which I think they should do as the lead governing body in the northern hemisphere, and SL clubs concerned about their own backyard. It's in SL's collective interests to get bigger and better but it's not actually in some clubs interests and that's a huge problem.

One thing I am sure of is that the sport gets nothing from setting teams up to fail and making it as difficult as possible to succeed. That just seems to result in a charade and much wasted money and years where little changes. 

I'll rejoin the discussion with you here on this point, not the stuff we have done a million times... 

I agree with much of this, although I'm not as down on the existing clubs as you portray. I think the governance here is crucial, we could remove much of the controversy here by having a simple written rule that if you play in SL you get a share of central funding. That shouldn't be too controversial and tbh, I'd rather clubs just worked to that budget and didn't even have to be in a position where they would think about that. 

My personal view is that I would go a step further and have ringfenced expansion funding, and that should support with things like grassroots in expansion areas, which would support the club, but also the game even if that club went away. It is things like this that should be managed by the leadership team and not by the clubs. 

Hopefully the new strategic partner will be a genuine forward looking partner who will make these tough decisions. I think some of the hard-nosed ruthlessness that is seen in F1 may be welcome in RL. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is a very binary (and flawed imo) way to look at it.

It was an undeniably controversial inclusion. How much of every decision from their inclusion to their demise was politics between the various players and stakeholders I suspect may never emerge either.

That may be so, but it is undeniably true. They were allowed in and were included in SL. Something being controversial is fine. 

Were they treated much worse than Bradford? 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'll rejoin the discussion with you here on this point, not the stuff we have done a million times... 

I agree with much of this, although I'm not as down on the existing clubs as you portray. I think the governance here is crucial, we could remove much of the controversy here by having a simple written rule that if you play in SL you get a share of central funding. That shouldn't be too controversial and tbh, I'd rather clubs just worked to that budget and didn't even have to be in a position where they would think about that. 

My personal view is that I would go a step further and have ringfenced expansion funding, and that should support with things like grassroots in expansion areas, which would support the club, but also the game even if that club went away. It is things like this that should be managed by the leadership team and not by the clubs. 

Hopefully the new strategic partner will be a genuine forward looking partner who will make these tough decisions. I think some of the hard-nosed ruthlessness that is seen in F1 may be welcome in RL. 

It's actually astounding that every year the same discussions take place on the amount of funding that a promoted team receives and even the travel costs that a promoted team has to pay.

I think clubs scurrying about to try and gain individually an extra 150k by denying funding to Toulouse or 50k by only giving Leigh part funding is not what a full time professional sport should be about. To an existing club that is the wages of a player, it really shouldn't be a big deal. However to a promoted team that is a huge amount of money that can be the difference between staying in SL and even financial survival and not.

I certainly agree on governance and leadership. It is desperately lacking and I think the game has been held back by successive leaders having to juggle making strategic decisions and keeping their jobs by placating their power base, i.e the clubs. That inevitably leads to decisions being made that aren't necessarily in the wider games best interests and at tines aren't even what the fans wish to see.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's actually astounding that every year the same discussions take place on the amount of funding that a promoted team receives and even the travel costs that a promoted team has to pay.

I think clubs scurrying about to try and gain individually an extra 150k by denying funding to Toulouse or 50k by only giving Leigh part funding is not what a full time professional sport should be about. To an existing club that is the wages of a player, it really shouldn't be a big deal. However to a promoted team that is a huge amount of money that can be the difference between staying in SL and even financial survival and not.

I certainly agree on governance and leadership. It is desperately lacking and I think the game has been held back by successive leaders having to juggle making strategic decisions and keeping their jobs by placating their power base, i.e the clubs. That inevitably leads to decisions being made that aren't necessarily in the wider games best interests and at tines aren't even what the fans wish to see.

Even if they were going to have negotiable central funding, anything held back really should be kept in central pots for the benefit of the comp, not clubs. 

I suppose we'll see if we get this change over the next year or two. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Even if they were going to have negotiable central funding, anything held back really should be kept in central pots for the benefit of the comp, not clubs. 

I suppose we'll see if we get this change over the next year or two. 

Not that I think we should, I don't, but yes if we are to do that it should certainly be used to enhance the competition. Letting clubs decide if a club should get funding for them to just pocket is just crazy.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

I didn't say it was in my post

Then whether the US is the biggest market in the world is completely irrelevant to any discussion of Toronto RL.