|
|
Post by JJR on Sept 27, 2020 19:52:25 GMT
Elstone says Toronto want £2M from SaL which is more than us or any team and they agreed nothing beforehand as a means of joining.
Also they have stated they'll get 9,000 full season ticket holders i.e. without concessions of kids
And it was stated SBW will be back earning his millions at next year. With him this week Sydney had its largest ever loss for ages,over 50 pts
Seems a joke
|
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on Sept 27, 2020 21:57:27 GMT
Toronto overplaying their hand,they’ll be rejected
|
|
|
|
Post by kreuzbergred on Sept 27, 2020 23:33:41 GMT
Elstone says Toronto want £2M from SaL which is more than us or any team and they agreed nothing beforehand as a means of joining. Also they have stated they'll get 9,000 full season ticket holders i.e. without concessions of kids And it was stated SBW will be back earning his millions at next year. With him this week Sydney had its largest ever loss for ages,over 50 pts Seems a joke Hope you Meant SL (SuperLeague) Not SaL IE: SRD😳 |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Sept 28, 2020 12:37:08 GMT
"Robert Elstone was among those who was against Toronto being allowed back into Super League at Friday’s board meeting, according to League Express. Castleford, Huddersfield and Wakefield are reported to have given the Wolfpack a definitive ‘no’ on Friday, but with no majority, Toronto were afforded another month to enhance their application for further review."
Fascinating how these are the votes against but there was no majority? Sounds and reads odd. to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveh on Sept 29, 2020 13:32:00 GMT
Other clubs may have also voted No but are not making their vote public. The SL board may also require a clear two-thirds majority to make a decision either way, so they would need 8 clubs to either vote No or vote Yes to make a decision. So, if it is tied up at 6 to 5 or 7 to 4 then that could be the reason why they are looking for more information/extending the deadline for Toronto.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on Sept 29, 2020 14:57:48 GMT
Or they could be doing it properly for once, proper financial and market analysis but giving them every chance
For once they shouldn't do it on sentiment. It has also to be fair to Championship clubs. Remember London lost their place and are still viable today, so to support a team which has failed financially for whatever reason, there must be a very sound business case and then a penalty for failing this season.
A stupid poll in Toronto says 1,7M support them. I bet not a tenth of them understand what RL is.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on Sept 29, 2020 15:46:00 GMT
A stupid poll in Toronto says 1,7M support them. I bet not a tenth of them understand what RL is. That’s probably true but I met a random bloke from Toronto in a non rugby setting and he knew all about them and their stadium. Not a representative sample ,I know,but I wouldn’t discount the new market that they’re opening up. Not the same as Featherstone,but a decent start. The real question is obviously about viability. My view for what it’s worth is that ,if they take their equal share of the TV money and other clubs are prepared to pay their own way when playing away,then it’s worth continuing the experiment,because that ,in simple terms,is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Sept 29, 2020 15:59:45 GMT
The trouble with conjecture is you work in the dark all of the time. It is the Rugby way of doing things though!
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on Sept 29, 2020 16:23:49 GMT
A stupid poll in Toronto says 1,7M support them. I bet not a tenth of them understand what RL is. That’s probably true but I met a random bloke from Toronto in a non rugby setting and he knew all about them and their stadium. Not a representative sample ,I know,but I wouldn’t discount the new market that they’re opening up. Not the same as Featherstone,but a decent start. The real question is obviously about viability. My view for what it’s worth is that ,if they take their equal share of the TV money and other clubs are prepared to pay their own way when playing away,then it’s worth continuing the experiment,because that ,in simple terms,is what it is. But I think the original agreement was they were let in preferentially because they didnt take a share of Sky money So why should they be allowed to change the goal posts? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 16:48:23 GMT
The more I think about this the more you can see 2 sides.
If we don't it makes the game look even more disorganised, let them back it looks like we have no backbone.
Can the league survive with only 11 teams? You can't promote anyone simply because the top tier loses a team.
You can't just say Leigh/Widnes/Bradford or AN Other get the 12th spot as there is no yardstick as in comp this season for them.
So for me we let them back but with a huge financial penalty and up front payment incase they go nipples north again.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Sept 29, 2020 16:54:25 GMT
That’s probably true but I met a random bloke from Toronto in a non rugby setting and he knew all about them and their stadium. Not a representative sample ,I know,but I wouldn’t discount the new market that they’re opening up. Not the same as Featherstone,but a decent start. The real question is obviously about viability. My view for what it’s worth is that ,if they take their equal share of the TV money and other clubs are prepared to pay their own way when playing away,then it’s worth continuing the experiment,because that ,in simple terms,is what it is. But I think the original agreement was they were let in preferentially because they didnt take a share of Sky money So why should they be allowed to change the goal posts? One explanation would be, just like Catalans, they're there by invitation only. That means they have no say in hat goes on at all. I think it mat be more about this than what monies they're asking for ..... they are very rich people. |
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on Sept 29, 2020 17:07:26 GMT
Is this really about money,as ever ?
This league will never progress unless all the teams receive the same.
I think Catalans waived the Sky money because they had their own deal
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on Sept 29, 2020 17:20:09 GMT
You can't keep making agreements and then say well it's not working so give me £2M
Of course it has to be financially sound.
From what's been leaked their business plan is a shambles: so you have potential, that's it, now prove it by going down to League 1 with Ottowa and sort it out.
Ottowa v Toronto in Dublin as it's too cold in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on Sept 29, 2020 17:37:46 GMT
Agreed,but that’s not my point.
I just think that ,if the project is to continue, all clubs should receive the same distribution.
I don’t see the prospective Toronto owners supporting anything that isn’t a Superleague place
|
|
|
|
Post by kreuzbergred on Sept 29, 2020 18:47:27 GMT
|
|
