Joined: Apr 02 2004 Posts: 1276 Location: Not there
northernbloke wrote:Your actually wrong on a number of counts .Toronto chose not to take any central funding, it was not denied to them Toronto never asked for 10%:weighting on the salary cap, they asked for 5% Why didnt they ask for it at the outset? The change to the SL structure would have to be RFL and SL approved. As for Toronto paying costs of travel for SL clubs, I actually don't know about that, do believe they still owe a number of clubs from last year So what did elstone say and when
20th Feb: Super League executive chairman Robert Elstone insists there would be no reprieve for the Canadian club if they finish bottom, like Catalans Dragons received in 2006.
"I'm not minded that they should be exempt," Elstone told the PA news agency. "I know that makes it very hard for them.
"For me, there are two types of expansion. There is the strategic, planned, structured, logical expansion into an area that has got some heritage versus one that is less structured, less stable and arguably more spurious. I've been very consistent on that.
"I think Toronto is in the last category and therefore has to prove to the game that it is a good long-term bet for us. It is still going through that process now.
“If it comes off and it proves to be well founded and there for the long term, that is terrific.
"But, with 26 games to go, I'm sure they're not thinking about relegation."
northernbloke wrote:Your actually wrong on a number of counts .Toronto chose not to take any central funding, it was not denied to them Toronto never asked for 10%:weighting on the salary cap, they asked for 5% Why didnt they ask for it at the outset? The change to the SL structure would have to be RFL and SL approved. As for Toronto paying costs of travel for SL clubs, I actually don't know about that, do believe they still owe a number of clubs from last year So what did elstone say and when
20th Feb: Super League executive chairman Robert Elstone insists there would be no reprieve for the Canadian club if they finish bottom, like Catalans Dragons received in 2006.
"I'm not minded that they should be exempt," Elstone told the PA news agency. "I know that makes it very hard for them.
"For me, there are two types of expansion. There is the strategic, planned, structured, logical expansion into an area that has got some heritage versus one that is less structured, less stable and arguably more spurious. I've been very consistent on that.
"I think Toronto is in the last category and therefore has to prove to the game that it is a good long-term bet for us. It is still going through that process now.
“If it comes off and it proves to be well founded and there for the long term, that is terrific.
"But, with 26 games to go, I'm sure they're not thinking about relegation."
northernbloke wrote:Your actually wrong on a number of counts .Toronto chose not to take any central funding, it was not denied to them Toronto never asked for 10%:weighting on the salary cap, they asked for 5% Why didnt they ask for it at the outset? The change to the SL structure would have to be RFL and SL approved. As for Toronto paying costs of travel for SL clubs, I actually don't know about that, do believe they still owe a number of clubs from last year So what did elstone say and when
Not true. They agreed with the RFL for for that to be the case in L1/Ch but there was no agreement about it for SL, and TWP expected it to be different. The SL clubs refused to give them that money. They do, however, give Catalans £1.8m despite them not bringing in a broadcast deal. They told TWP they could instead keep whatever money they generated from the Canadian TV rights, but those rights had already been sold to Sky so TWP would have to buy them back from them and then find a buyer in order to try and make some money.
Don't know the precise date TWP asked for the 5%, but it was before the season kicked off. Why it was 5 and not 10%, I've no idea. Either way, the SL clubs refused to give it to them.
You said the RFL wanted TWP to stay up and would change SL 14 clubs, I told you they couldn't do that.
As to Elstone's comments - he called them "spurious" for god's sake. It's clear how he views them.
Without doubt. Putting the Super League up to a fourteen team competition, would be a good thing as the loop fixtures would go. It would make the competition far more interesting.
northernbloke wrote:Your actually wrong on a number of counts .Toronto chose not to take any central funding, it was not denied to them Toronto never asked for 10%:weighting on the salary cap, they asked for 5% Why didnt they ask for it at the outset? The change to the SL structure would have to be RFL and SL approved. As for Toronto paying costs of travel for SL clubs, I actually don't know about that, do believe they still owe a number of clubs from last year So what did elstone say and when
Also I can never remember London getting the London weighting allowance, it was always a big gripe because the money did not go as far in the capital as what it did up north.
Bostwick wrote:Without doubt. Putting the Super League up to a fourteen team competition, would be a good thing as the loop fixtures would go. It would make the competition far more interesting.
Agreed. It was a bloody stupid idea to reduce it to 12 teams in the first place.
Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number-- Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you-- Ye are many -- they are few.'
wantawin wrote:Also I can never remember London getting the London weighting allowance, it was always a big gripe because the money did not go as far in the capital as what it did up north.
We definitely had a 10% allowance for a few years, Richard Lewis introduced it. The sport really misses that man.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
