If Toronto are able to negotiate some additional TV rights because they are based in another country then there isn't much you can do about it. Catalans do the exact same thing, and as someone else mentioned the Crusaders did likewise back when they were in SL.
Don't forget that both Toronto and Catalans will have far higher travel costs than others in their leagues though, so in the end the difference might not be that much.

You're having a laugh, right ?

For any business to allow one of their competitors to send a TV company into their back yard and make money from a broadcast, whilst said club gets feck all and without seeking permission is not acceptable.

Any loss of fans would come out of the home club's pocket and Toronto stand to gain.

Stand alone TV deals for "expansion" clubs are not acceptable.
IF they were chipping in to the main pot and this was being distributed for the "greater good" then there is no issue but, this doesn't appear to be the case.

I get what you are saying about increased advertising possibilities and maybe you are right but these things should be agreed between all clubs that may be affected and shouldn't ever be any one club pleasing themselves.

Massively different for Toronto's home games, although personally, I believe that any TV revenue should be shared.

Unfortunately for you, Leigh won't have a say in the matter. When you apply for membership to the RFL you also hand over all responsibility regarding the negotiations of any TV broadcasting rights.

Additional costs for Toronto are irrelevant.
Surely any costs will be in their business plan to compete in The Championship (or League 1).

Of course they are relevant. You want any income they can generate to be shared but don't want to know about expenditure? Okay then.

Maybe their additional tv rights form part of their business plan also?

Are you saying, If Leigh v Toronto is televised by PS, TW will get broadcasting money,and Leigh won't?

It seems to be a contract between PS and TW so yes, that’s exactly what will happen.

Not if PS are refused entrance to the ground pal.

maybe Toronto and Catalans are allowed to arrange their own TV deals because they arent members of the RFL. AFA~IK their only guests. Toronto receive no central funding (SKY TV money, not sure if this is also true for catalans). So as they dont benefit from the SKY deal their allowed to negotiate their own TV deal?. Presumably they will have done some deal direct with SKY as the rights holder (maybe for highlights) or they would be objecting. In Catalans case they allowed sky to re-broadcast any catalans home games from the BEIN tv feed savin SKY the associated outside broadcast costs of sending cameras to France. Dont think any SL teams objected to this. Bit more difficult in championship as sky choose not to televise any other matches.

Sorry FA your argument just doesnt stack up.

For one off events, perhaps demand will exceed supply in terms of available tickets and with our own "events" we (RL) are happy to broadcast major finals and The Magic Weekend etc.
However, if there is no loss in revenue for clubs when the are featured on Sky, why does each home club in SL draw a payment from the "TV pot" when their home games are featured on Sky, this would appear to be some form of compensation, which clearly wouldn't be necessary if said club was gaining extra advertising revenue etc.
I appreciate that Sky tend to use their own "advertising boards" and that Premier probably wouldn't but, the point still stands.

In terms of the TV deal, I believe it comes down to the markets or languages of the respective broadcasters. S4C were able to broadcast Crusaders games (despite Sky holding some championship rights) because they were broadcast in the Welsh language. Sky doesn't market itself in France or broadcast in the French language, so we have a seperate arrangement with a French broadcaster (although I believe that agreement is negotiated alongside the RFL / SLE) and Toronto have a broadcast agreement with Game TV, simulcast with Premier Sports.

It may be that Championship clubs may have an issue with Premier Sports, but they don't (IMO) have an argument against any Canadian broadcaster. The game being broadcast in Canada has no bearing on clubs in the UK.

If it's a contract directly between PS and TW, then each UK (plus Toulouse?) club can either refuse admission to the PS crew, or (preferably) charge them for the privilege of using the stadium facilities. It's not an issue for TW home games, but unless there's been some sort of central deal been done via the RFL, then PS will have no rights to enter stadia outside Canada.

The club draws a payment as they are providing some bloody good top class entertainment on the day for a mass audience out of which arrangement the broadcaster is presumed to be making money under its own commercial judgments, and naturally the club and the players shouldn't have to do so for nothing! It's not compensation at all, it's a share of the pot negotiated by ESL/RFL precisely to be split between the clubs in the manner agreed.

Anything on top of that the clubs draw from marketing etc is the result of their own efforts and business acumen and again is rightfully their own. Whether there may or may not be some loss in revenue in ticket sales is no doubt something the clubs considered when discussing the deal, but then they would have a good idea which fixtures would be televised. I wonder how many the Bulls lost off the gate when we got 23,000 plus in that televised game against Leeds? Or Wigan / Saints derbies?

In the big games, like the Bulle/Leeds or Wigan/Saints games that you mention, I agree, there is zero loss in ticket revenue.
However, the flip side of that coin, may be Salford v Wakefield on a Thursday night, at short notice (i think it was about 5 days) and there is no doubt whatsoever that the gat would take a hit, along with so many of the re-arranged games towards the end of the season and to the average punter, the payment (from the TV pot) will go some way to compensate the home club for loss of revenue.
Some games feature on Sky because they are "important" fixtures but, many are juts screen filler and these are the games when many fans watch from the comfort of their local, rather than making the effort to attend.
On a related note, why do you think Mr Carter (Wakefield Chairman) complained so bitterly about only being on Sky twice in the 2016 season, having "lost" 60k into the TV pot, Trinity were only "paid out" twice.

Has no one noticed that for the past 20+ years Sky & those paying for the game do as they like? The governing body is run/owned by the clubs & they have agreed it. As a point of interest just above this reply as I type is an advert for premier sports saying every NRL game free, what's that all about if they have lost the TV rights?