England Women, Champions of Europe

[nebristolred]

If Robbored hasn't seen something then apparently it cannot exist.

[Fordy62]

Never ever have I seen a team see a game out more comfortably than England did last night. I winced when they started playing it to the corner at 124 minutes (8 left to play!) but my god did they prove me wrong. Never ever have I seen anything like it. Brilliant. 

[Northern Red]

10 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

What an amazing achievement. I've covered women's football off and on for a number of years and the physical, technical and tactical improvement has been quite staggering. The top league going fully professional has made a huge difference.

I love that this team also seem so relatable - a mix of younger players interspersed with older players who, once upon a time, even had to hold down part-time jobs just to sustain their football career.

Personally, I do find this desire to benchmark everything against the men's game - including the media's insistence to trot out the "first since 66" line - only serves to create an even bigger divide and greater resistance.

Just a personal view, but I think the women's team winning their first major trophy is FAR more significant than it being a first major trophy for either gender since 1966. It's a feat worthy of standing on its own as a sign of progress and a moment to inspire a new generation of football fans.

Absolutely spot on. And I've noticed a lot of the comparing is coming from people who'd seemingly barely watched a game of women's football until a couple of weeks ago and wouldn't have given yesterday's game a second glance if England weren't in it. Though I suppose it's no different to the people who attach themselves to the men's team during major tournaments then go back to not giving a shit when it's over.

[SecretSam]

12 hours ago, Robbored said:

I know what feminism is…………..….

I don’t need it to be rammed down my throat tho. I have the same views on those who try to do the same with religion.

 

Religion is a belief in the irrational, used to control the feeble minded.

Feminism is plain decency and common sense.

[SecretSam]

12 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Absolutely spot on. And I've noticed a lot of the comparing is coming from people who'd seemingly barely watched a game of women's football until a couple of weeks ago and wouldn't have given yesterday's game a second glance if England weren't in it. Though I suppose it's no different to the people who attach themselves to the men's team during major tournaments then go back to not giving a shit when it's over.

But at the same time, the important thing is they are watching. I don't watch a huge amount of women's football, but I was really impressed.

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

This is incorrect. The sponsorship the womens game recieves is greater than the money that is received from the EPL that would never cover the costs of the WSL and its teams.  

Virtually all women's 'professional' football is funded by parent clubs. At the top end to the tune of many millions of pounds each year. I think it had been reported Chelsea, as WSL champions, to the tune of upward of £200k per week. Sponsorship is presently around £10m a year for the top two tiers, The Premier gave a similar amount from the last TV deal for the overall development of the women's game (all tiers,) not sure if the EPL contributes (other than allowing cross subsidy from men's football.) But if that last measure is all it'll outstrip all other sponsorships by miles.

In City's case and in the last accounts the women's team had debts of around £93k, of which around £22k were EBITDA in year and thereafter consumed within the overall losses. Small change? Oh the 15 employees, all their wages, all their costs and expenses were reported against the overarching account, not the women's team. The woman's game reports it's income but not it's expenses on the pretext the club offsets such losses from FFP/P&S calculations. 

[IAmNick]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Virtually all women's 'professional' football is funded by parent clubs. At the top end to the tune of many millions of pounds each year. I think it had been reported Chelsea, as WSL champions, to the tune of upward of £200k per week. Sponsorship is presently around £10m a year for the top two tiers, The Premier gave a similar amount from the last TV deal for the overall development of the women's game (all tiers,) not sure if the EPL contributes (other than allowing cross subsidy from men's football.) But if that last measure is all it'll outstrip all other sponsorships by miles.

In City's case and in the last accounts the women's team had debts of around £93k, of which around £22k were EBITDA in year and thereafter consumed within the overall losses. Small change? Oh the 15 employees, all their wages, all their costs and expenses were reported against the overarching account, not the women's team. The woman's game reports it's income but not it's expenses on the pretext the club offsets such losses from FFP/P&S calculations. 

And are these parent clubs self sustaining and well run monetarily, or do they for a large part also make eye watering losses and are mostly propped up by sugar daddy billionaires?

I'd also argue that something making money or not has almost NO bearing on it's legitimacy or worth.

Who cares if they currently need outside funding, and if the men's game is contributing? Surely the goal is for both to reach an equal footing, so anything which can aid that should be seen as a progressive and good thing rather than a stick to beat them with.

[BTRFTG]

55 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

The mens game where most clubs are, er, mostly bankrupt and dependant on funding from billionaire owners?

Indeed. The difference being there are income streams whereby men's professional football could be made to pay it's own way. It isn't (yet) bankrupt and why it may keep trading.

That isn't the case for women's professional football where the rules allow larger clubs to pass costs to related entities but where those without patronage have been known to forfeit cup ties because an unkind draw has made the journey unaffordable.

[cityexile]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

Indeed. The difference being there are income streams whereby men's professional football could be made to pay it's own way. It isn't (yet) bankrupt and why it may keep trading.

That isn't the case for women's professional football where the rules allow larger clubs to pass costs to related entities but where those without patronage have been known to forfeit cup ties because an unkind draw has made the journey unaffordable.

I think it is generally acknowledged that women’s football has required investment, and why this cup run was important. It is hoped that it will drive more fans to the week to week games, more income, more sponsorship, higher TV revenues, that all give it a route forward. We shall see. I don’t also entirely buy the argument that men’s football is sustainable because Club X gets £200m from its owners, but if 0.5% of that goes to their women’s team it means they are not. It is self evidently compared to mens football in its infancy.

I also think it was one of the reasons for the sheer unleashed joy from the England team yesterday after the final whistle. This was their big stage, what gives them the profile, the biggest match of their lives. For a lot of world class men players the International side is important, but not all defining. Their profile, contracts etc come from domestic leagues and things like European competitions. Even for fans, would Man City fans prefer a Champions League win v England winning something? Or us, promotion?

Its interesting to compare the ETs in the final last night and Italy. Against a skilled but clearly tiring opponent last night, we got players forward at a corner. In daring to win they increased the chances also of losing. The manager was not thinking ‘who do I bring on for penalties’ in very similar circumstances, but even with tired legs trying to find a way win it.

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

And are these parent clubs self sustaining and well run monetarily, or do they for a large part also make eye watering losses and are mostly propped up by sugar daddy billionaires?

I'd also argue that something making money or not has almost NO bearing on it's legitimacy or worth.

Who cares if they currently need outside funding, and if the men's game is contributing? Surely the goal is for both to reach an equal footing, so anything which can aid that should be seen as a progressive and good thing rather than a stick to beat them with.

Self-sustaining? They have to have the potential so to be else immediately must enter administration.

Agreed /, profit and merit have no correlation.

Equal footing? Ah, to the point of my original response, you'll recall, the comparison that the Lionesses had done something no men's team had done since 66. Should they both have the opportunity to provide outlets for both sexes to play? Of course they should. Should success in both be recognised? Again, of course it should. Should the entertainment and skill levels across the sexes be considered equal? Historically the populous would suggest not. Doubtless a few more will have changed their opinion since yesterday, perhaps there will be a boom in attendances across the women's game and good if there is. But for those who demand equality in everything, even where it doesn't exist, there are always those who highlight that folly. Having spent a lifetime watching football, and not the greatest standard either, I've absolutely no interest in watching football of lower standard. Whether that's women, kids, walking or disabled unless one has a personal interest, why bother? England's women won a women tournament. Great. Congratulations. But no need for unfounded extrapolation.

[Super]

Peaked at 17.4M yesterday. Incredible.

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

Especially when it proves you wrong.

Wrong? ……………..

Nobody has given me a name of a female manager in charge of an British professional mens club. There might be one or two in other European countries but I’m not remotely interested in any league outside of England.

I’m an Englishman first and British second and European third.

[TonyTonyTony]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

I've absolutely no interest in watching football of lower standard. Whether that's women, kids, walking or disabled unless one has a personal interest, why bother? England's women won a women tournament. Great. Congratulations. But no need for unfounded extrapolation.

For someone not interested in it, you sure do like to talk about it

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Peaked at 17.4M yesterday. Incredible.

Wow! That’s an amazing number. Well done the BBC.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, nebristolred said:

If Robbored hasn't seen something then apparently it cannot exist.

Not for the first time, he's in a hole, but still digging.

[BTRFTG]

Just now, TonyTonyTony said:

For someone not interested in it, you sure do like to talk about it

Given today's wall to wall bandwagon jumping it's hard not to.

But I'll be open. I'll commit to attending as many women's matches next year as I did this. (In my case that's not difficult.) Unlike others I won't scream women's football is the greatest thing since slice bread then do nothing until success is next in the horizon.

[Alex_BCFC]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Wrong? ……………..

Nobody has given me a name of a female manager in charge of an British professional mens club. There might be one or two in other European countries but I’m not remotely interested in any league outside of England.

I’m an Englishman first and British second and European third.

First and foremost though - you are a joker. 

[cityexile]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Wrong? ……………..

Nobody has given me a name of a female manager in charge of an British professional mens club. There might be one or two in other European countries but I’m not remotely interested in any league outside of England.

I’m an Englishman first and British second and European third.

I am far to much of a gentleman and too mild mannered to argue with that ranking and to suggest that others might rank you with other qualities higher...

[BS2 Red]

25 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Indeed. The difference being there are income streams whereby men's professional football could be made to pay it's own way. It isn't (yet) bankrupt and why it may keep trading.

That isn't the case for women's professional football where the rules allow larger clubs to pass costs to related entities but where those without patronage have been known to forfeit cup ties because an unkind draw has made the journey unaffordable.

What does any of that actually mean?

The mens game could be self sustaining? As it stands, the majority of mens clubs face utter financial ruin if their wealthy backers get bored of their toy.

The same goes for the womens game, they are reliant on cash from their parent club. 

Football's finances are a mess, no matter the sex of the players.

[Cowshed]

51 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Virtually all women's 'professional' football is funded by parent clubs. At the top end to the tune of many millions of pounds each year. I think it had been reported Chelsea, as WSL champions, to the tune of upward of £200k per week. Sponsorship is presently around £10m a year for the top two tiers, The Premier gave a similar amount from the last TV deal for the overall development of the women's game (all tiers,) not sure if the EPL contributes (other than allowing cross subsidy from men's football.) But if that last measure is all it'll outstrip all other sponsorships by miles.

In City's case and in the last accounts the women's team had debts of around £93k, of which around £22k were EBITDA in year and thereafter consumed within the overall losses. Small change? Oh the 15 employees, all their wages, all their costs and expenses were reported against the overarching account, not the women's team. The woman's game reports it's income but not it's expenses on the pretext the club offsets such losses from FFP/P&S calculations. 

The EPL contributes around 1.75 million pounds a year to the WSL. Barclays sponsorship is 3 million pounds per season. Barclays is providing further inverstment to the FA to invest in womens football that is around 30 million pounds in total over the three years.

Chelsea see fit to run their womens football as they see fit. They have brought in players from twelve nations. They lose money. A choice of the owners, but this team isn't dependant on the mens game, thery are dependant on their owners. Arsenal are similar, they have even less English players than Chelsea and that is dependant on the choice of their owners to fund the team. Man City pay players 25 - 250k a season, that is not dependant on the game, or mens football, or sponsorship, its again the choice of their owners.

The mens game offsets v FFP.

Your point? With respect in regards to dependancy of course the womens game rides on the back of mens football, but its not dependant on the mens game for its existence.  

Edited August 1, 2022 by Cowshed

[2015]

I don't get the comparisons to the Men's game. It's a totally different Sport imo.

I take the Women's game on face value, and for what it's worth they've come a long way in the last 10 years. Much more exciting than it once was. The comparisons to Men isn't fair on them or the Men.

I am delighted for the England team who won the Tournament, just do not think it's fair or right to use it as a stick to beat Men with. 

As for the comments about toxicity and tribalism in the Men's game - I love that aspect of rivalry, tense atmosphere and banter between 2 sets of fans. It creates special moments and memories. 

Anyway delighted for the Women and I hope their game goes from strength to strength.

[DolmanGaz]

Rather enjoyed the final, though was the first game of the tournament I'd watched. Cracking finish for our first goal. 

Be interested to see how the game improves between now and the next WC.

I wish the media would give it a rest though, all the "no more years of hurt" headlines. With the greatest respect, that is based around the continued failings of the men's team. It doesn't look like those following the ladies will have to endure so much pain and disappointment moving forward!

[Barrs Court Red]

11 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I don't get the comparisons to the Men's game. It's a totally different Sport imo.

I take the Women's game on face value, and for what it's worth they've come a long way in the last 10 years. Much more exciting than it once was. The comparisons to Men isn't fair on them or the Men.

I am delighted for the England team who won the Tournament, just do not think it's fair or right to use it as a stick to beat Men with. 

As for the comments about toxicity and tribalism in the Men's game - I love that aspect of rivalry, tense atmosphere and banter between 2 sets of fans. It creates special moments and memories. 

Anyway delighted for the Women and I hope their game goes from strength to strength.

That covers my thoughts nicely too. As I see it, there’s no point dwelling on any false equivalence, but enjoy it for what it is - a game of football that’s different to what you’d normally see.  

[ChippenhamRed]

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Given today's wall to wall bandwagon jumping it's hard not to.

But I'll be open. I'll commit to attending as many women's matches next year as I did this. (In my case that's not difficult.) Unlike others I won't scream women's football is the greatest thing since slice bread then do nothing until success is next in the horizon.

Well aren’t you just an absolute delight. You’ve really captured the mood.

Bore off and let the rest of us just enjoy a rare moment of international success for our national sport.

[2015]

1 minute ago, Barrs Court Red said:

That covers my thoughts nicely too. As I see it, there’s no point dwelling on any false equivalence, but enjoy it for what it is - a game of football that’s different to what you’d normally see.  

It's a very simple way of looking at it, but as usual so many want to just use it as a way to take a moral high ground and have a go at the men

England won a tournament, just enjoy it. 

[Robbored]

11 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I don't get the comparisons to the Men's game. It's a totally different Sport imo.

I take the Women's game on face value, and for what it's worth they've come a long way in the last 10 years. Much more exciting than it once was. The comparisons to Men isn't fair on them or the Men.

I am delighted for the England team who won the Tournament, just do not think it's fair or right to use it as a stick to beat Men with. 

As for the comments about toxicity and tribalism in the Men's game - I love that aspect of rivalry, tense atmosphere and banter between 2 sets of fans. It creates special moments and memories. 

Anyway delighted for the Women and I hope their game goes from strength to strength.

It’s football - the same sport and the women play it the same way that men do. Same formations and same tactics. The England game management excellent as it usually is in the mens game ( unfortunately not City it would seem) The only difference that I’ve noticed is the lack of diving that we see in the mens game and that’s a real positive.

I really enjoyed the entire tournament, watched every England match and a couple of other games as well.

[Baba Yaga]

I watched the final yesterday and thought it was a good watch, wasn't too arsed who won but much prefer a close game which could go either way to seeing one team go out of sight. Some iconic moments like the finish for the first goal (who else thought she was going to miss ) and the celebrations for the winner and at full time. Good to see the non media trained or robotic interviews from the players at the end.

On another note I went to the national football museum a few weeks ago and was surprised that out of 4 floors there were 2 dedicated to the women's game (because let's face it in terms of history it isn't 50-50). I think if anyone ever goes in the future to expect yesterdays game to now be front and centre in there.

[2015]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It’s football - the same sport and the women play it the same way that men do. Same formations and same tactics. The England game management excellent as it usually is in the mens game ( unfortunately not City it would seem) The only difference that I’ve noticed is the lack of diving that we see in the mens game and that’s a real positive.

I really enjoyed the entire tournament, watched every England match and a couple of other games as well.

It's a totally different game. Money, coaching, physical attributes, depth of quality globally makes it a different sport/world entirely to what the women play. It's extremely hard for a man to make it professional in football, compared to a woman making it as a professional footballer, and that is down to girls not being into football or encouraged to play. That could and hopefully will change now.

Hopefully one day the Women's game gets there, but take it on face value for what it is, the tournament was good and the games i've seen were exciting, the skill level has massively improved.

[BS2 Red]

5 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

I watched the final yesterday and thought it was a good watch, wasn't too arsed who won

Don't worry, Russia might be allowed back in one day.  

[BTRFTG]

25 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

What does any of that actually mean?

The mens game could be self sustaining? As it stands, the majority of mens clubs face utter financial ruin if their wealthy backers get bored of their toy.

The same goes for the womens game, they are reliant on cash from their parent club. 

Football's finances are a mess, no matter the sex of the players.

Football is no exception and as with any business if the directors are of an opinion the operation may no longer be self funding then they must immediately takes steps to mitigate others losers by winding up the company.

Unlike many ungratefuls on here I remind why we've everything for which to thank Mr Lansdown as without his beneficence City would already be history. City cover this by having SL convert loan to stock. No longer club loses they'll be SL's if crystalized.

In football's case (men only) there are active controls (of which City may shortly fall foul,) that mandate long term sustainability and removal of the contrivance of ownership. The other difference between men's and women's football is, I suggest, that there are critical mass income streams within the men's game (and likely always will be, though not supportive of present rates of spend,) which may sustain the men's side but which are unlikely to materialise within the woman's game. I could be wrong, but history doesn't suggest I will be.

[Tinmans Love Child]

47 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Given today's wall to wall bandwagon jumping it's hard not to.

But I'll be open. I'll commit to attending as many women's matches next year as I did this. (In my case that's not difficult.) Unlike others I won't scream women's football is the greatest thing since slice bread then do nothing until success is next in the horizon.

Just 31 minutes of another game will beat your record!  

[bcfc01]

14 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

I watched the final yesterday and thought it was a good watch, wasn't too arsed who won but much prefer a close game which could go either way to seeing one team go out of sight. Some iconic moments like the finish for the first goal (who else thought she was going to miss ) and the celebrations for the winner and at full time. Good to see the non media trained or robotic interviews from the players at the end.

On another note I went to the national football museum a few weeks ago and was surprised that out of 4 floors there were 2 dedicated to the women's game (because let's face it in terms of history it isn't 50-50). I think if anyone ever goes in the future to expect yesterdays game to now be front and centre in there.

Which would be absolutely correct as its the National Football Museum, not the National Mens Football Museum.

 

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Well aren’t you just an absolute delight. You’ve really captured the mood.

Bore off and let the rest of us just enjoy a rare moment of international success for our national sport.

So it's a crime not to be a glory hunter, to not feel obligated to follow the masses.

I've done or said nothing to stop you and others enjoying your moment of glory (sic). I even offered my own congratulations to the Lionesses. 

All I did was highlight the folly of comparing the women's game to the men's. And that's now a crime? What, under your totalitarianism, would you have me do to mark the occasion?

1 minute ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Just 31 minutes of another game will beat your record!  

I said attend, not watch....

[Robbored]

14 minutes ago, 2015 said:

It's a totally different game. Money, coaching, physical attributes, depth of quality globally makes it a different sport/world entirely to what the women play. It's extremely hard for a man to make it professional in football, compared to a woman making it as a professional footballer, and that is down to girls not being into football or encouraged to play. That could and hopefully will change now.

Hopefully one day the Women's game gets there, but take it on face value for what it is, the tournament was good and the games i've seen were exciting, the skill level has massively improved.

Essentially you’re talking politics - there are numerous weaknesses within the structure of woman's football which have been highlighted by Englands women winning the European trophy and as you say hopefully that’ll change sooner rather than later.

My original comment is that football is football regardless of who plays it.

[2015]

Just now, Robbored said:

Essentially you’re talking politics - there are numerous weaknesses within the structure of woman's football which have been highlighted by Englands women winning the European trophy and as you say hopefully that’ll change sooner rather than later.

My original comment is that football is football regardless of who plays it.

All I'm saying is because of the above reasons that i've stated in my previous post, the 2 games shouldn't be compared as it's not a fair comparison. 

[Baba Yaga]

22 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Don't worry, Russia might be allowed back in one day.  

That reminds me I thought the Ukrainian ref didn't have a great game.

12 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Which would be absolutely correct as its the National Football Museum, not the National Mens Football Museum.

 

A few weeks ago they were struggling to fill 2 floors with things related to women's football, yesterdays game will definitely help make them make it a bit more exciting.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Baba Yaga

[Numero Uno]

Great win and a massive shot in the arm for Women’s football in this country. Very enjoyable game and occasion with no scousers smashed on coke around to ruin the day.

Pointless to compare to the men (works both ways - saying that they should replace the men in Qatar is equally as pointless as pointing out the Blue Few would hammer them over 90 minutes).

The sad thing for me is that the sport probably will build on this but as soon as they do and the profile is sufficiently raised you just watch the gutter press (who will already be doing in-depth research on the lot of them) do everything in their power to bring it crashing down to earth. As certain as night follows day.

In addition as soon as the commercialisation of the game is on a far higher level than now those talking about no cheating, diving, dissent (apart from White and Huth all game yesterday) will have a rude awakening. It’s not meant to be negative but the game is bound to follow a similar pattern to the mens game in time.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

The England Ladies have always been decent, the professionalisation of the game has made them even better.  What the FA need to do is stay careful and remember that Women's football isn't Men's football and there are subtle differences and recognise that putting Phil Neville in charge was stupid, and ridiculous (not only was he not a very good men's football manager he didn't understand the women's game either), he completely derailed their world cup, Sarina Wiegman has been amazing for the women, its important I think for Women's football for the powers at be to remember not to try and not turn the Womans game into the Mens game.   I don't like it when people make direct comparisons with men's football its silly as though the rules are the same, the game is different, what you risk by doing this is creating the perception that the women's game isn't as good as the men's game because its not as quick or the shots are not as powerful, but on the flipside the women get more time on the ball, more dribbling and the range and types of shots as a result are quite often more entertaining.  The skills are the same they are just employed differently due to differing levels of physique and its important not to loose that perspective in some daft drive to draw direct comparisons between the genders.  I really like watching the ladies games from time to time, but the key thing is time, supporters only have so much time and money so the women's game needs to attract its own new fan base to be sustainable, and we shouldn't extrapolate the fans watching this as a 1:1 increase in the grassroots game as it wont be, there will be some who watch both but for the most part its will need a whole new fanbase and it might be in my view a great idea to make the women's away games for example PPV subscription for a period of time, as I'm not sure there would be the same amount of away travel for games.  It would get money into the game and be a more flexible method of consumption for a new fanbase. 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Alex_BCFC said:

First and foremost though - you are a joker. 

 

That's a lot more polite than the adjective I was going to use...  

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Wrong? ……………..

Nobody has given me a name of a female manager in charge of an British professional mens club. There might be one or two in other European countries but I’m not remotely interested in any league outside of England.

I’m an Englishman first and British second and European third.

Ah so now it's "British Professional men's club" Anymore goalposts you would like to move to win your argument?

[Red-Robbo]

23 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

So it's a crime not to be a glory hunter,

 

To enjoy the games and support your country doesn't make you a "glory hunter".

It's true, I'm not about to rush out and get a season card for BCFC Women, but I do have more respect for the ladies' game and will be more likely to watch the odd televised game in future. Not because I've clambered on any bandwagon, but just because I enjoyed the matches I watched. As others have said, the technical improvement in recent years has been amazing. I'll doubtless remain largely a watcher of the men's game, but I won't be as quick to dismiss the women's version. It isn't the same as men's matches, but these Euros have proved to me that they can be a decent watch. 

[Robbored]

5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Ah so now it's "British Professional men's club" Anymore goalposts you would like to move to win your argument?

It’s not an argument PSR - it’s a question.

How many British professional mens clubs have a female manager?       

[BS2 Red]

55 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Football is no exception and as with any business if the directors are of an opinion the operation may no longer be self funding then they must immediately takes steps to mitigate others losers by winding up the company.

Unlike many ungratefuls on here I remind why we've everything for which to thank Mr Lansdown as without his beneficence City would already be history. City cover this by having SL convert loan to stock. No longer club loses they'll be SL's if crystalized.

In football's case (men only) there are active controls (of which City may shortly fall foul,) that mandate long term sustainability and removal of the contrivance of ownership. The other difference between men's and women's football is, I suggest, that there are critical mass income streams within the men's game (and likely always will be, though not supportive of present rates of spend,) which may sustain the men's side but which are unlikely to materialise within the woman's game. I could be wrong, but history doesn't suggest I will be.

Those active controls (which are often sidestepped) haven't existed in the mens game for very long.

There are no income streams in mens football that womens football doesn't/can't have. Womens football will probably always be smaller and with less money, but that doesn't make it worthless.

[spudski]

I thought the whole thing was a breath of fresh air...how all football should be.

From the coverage, the fans having fun in a civil way, all inclusive, how the teams played in a skillful and passionate way. The players played and acted how I would want a team to act and perform.

If men's football and crowds were like that, I'd be over the moon.

It is after all... entertainment.

It would be nice if woman's football became as popular as men's...but was able to keep the same ethos and for want of a better word ... environment.

Obviously woman's football wants to grow financially and have all the benefits of men's football. The sad thing is...the more it does, the less entertaining it will become imo.

Some sports reach a pinnacle where they are perfect in standard and entertainment. It's like there should be a mathematical equation for it. It just feels right.

In the same way I feel about F1, Tennis, Football and a few other sports...where professionalism versus entertainment came to point that was perfect...and now it's surpassed that point in a negative entertainment value. If that makes sense...

[nebristolred]

53 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It’s not an argument PSR - it’s a question.

How many British professional mens clubs have a female manager?       

You said 'any level'.

Does football not exist outside Britain?

[Robbored]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

I thought the whole thing was a breath of fresh air...how all football should be.

From the coverage, the fans having fun in a civil way, all inclusive, how the teams played in a skillful and passionate way. The players played and acted how I would want a team to act and perform.

If men's football and crowds were like that, I'd be over the moon.

It is after all... entertainment.

It would be nice if woman's football became as popular as men's...but was able to keep the same ethos and for want of a better word ... environment.

Obviously woman's football wants to grow financially and have all the benefits of men's football. The sad thing is...the more it does, the less entertaining it will become imo.

 

Not sure why you think that Spudski.

I know that some consider the various broadcasters money flooding the game to be a negative but I don’t see it like that at all.

I really enjoy watching top quality football played by fantastically talented players in the PL which is considered to be the best league in Europe if not the world. Top class entertainment imo and if the woman’s game goes the same way then so be it.

 

 

 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not sure why you think that Spudski.

I know that some consider the various broadcasters money flooding the game to be a negative but I don’t see it like that at all.

I really enjoy watching top quality football played by fantastically talented players in the PL which is considered to be the best league in Europe if not the world. Top class entertainment imo and if the woman’s game goes the same way then so be it.

 

 

 

Your comments don't surprise me RR.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

Your comments don't surprise me RR.

Hmm…… I’m surprised that you think that watching top level players showing theirs skills isn’t providing excellent entertainment.

Top level players cost serious money and TV broadcasters cough up much of the PL clubs income. To me that’s a positive that we fans get the benefit to watch these players.

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Hmm…… I’m surprised that you think that watching top level players showing theirs skills isn’t providing excellent entertainment.

Top level players cost serious money and TV broadcasters cough up much of the PL clubs income. To me that’s a positive that we fans get the benefit to watch these players.

Entertainment is often at its highest when mistakes occur. When it's not perfect.

Imo...some sports have become too perfect. 

Defence nullifying attack.

Technology over human error.

Perfect defence on football against perfect offense. What's the end result. A stalemate.

[Numero Uno]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Hmm…… I’m surprised that you think that watching top level players showing theirs skills isn’t providing excellent entertainment.

Top level players cost serious money and TV broadcasters cough up much of the PL clubs income. To me that’s a positive that we fans get the benefit to watch these players.

I think the point being made is whilst we all appreciate the skill levels of the players many people don't really want to see the ridiculous diving (imagine if your team were on the end of a penalty decision where the player goes down three steps after contact), the surrounding the referee, the waving of imaginary yellow cards, the shagging each other senseless at corners, the fake injuries, the trying to get fellow professionals sent off, the overt goading of opposition fans after you score and then moaning like a right bastard when one lobs a bottle of water at you etc. etc. It's a pretty straightforward point to understand and it would be interesting if anyone can offer a counter opinion that suggests these incidents ADD to the entertainment value............

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I think the point being made is whilst we all appreciate the skill levels of the players many people don't really want to see the ridiculous diving (imagine if your team were on the end of a penalty decision where the player goes down three steps after contact), the surrounding the referee, the waving of imaginary yellow cards, the shagging each other senseless at corners, the fake injuries, the trying to get fellow professionals sent off, the overt goading of opposition fans after you score and then moaning like a right bastard when one lobs a bottle of water at you etc. etc. It's a pretty straightforward point to understand and it would be interesting if anyone can offer a counter opinion that suggests these incidents ADD to the entertainment value............

It’s always gone on Spudski - you may remember the likes of Rodney Marsh and Franny Lee diving way back in the 70s. That said it’s become far worse since the drip, drip introduction of Latino’s, Spanish and other European players.

Thats been the main reason we see such dreadful antics. Simeone is one perfect example. If he ever managed in the PL most of his players would get sent off.

[BanburyRed]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

It’s not an argument PSR - it’s a question.

How many British professional mens clubs have a female manager?       

And you certainly didn't have the word 'British' in your original question....

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

18 hours ago, Midred said:

Puts some of our prima donna men to shame!

 

 

 

If you can have male prima donnas!

Yes you're right, the highest paid women's pro footballer is on around 330,000 euros a year and not a month as a lot of our prima donna Premier league players are on.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

17 hours ago, Antman said:

When kelly poked the winner in, and the TV replayed her running in slow mo waving her shirt with everything moving in every direction

My wife just said..."that'll go viral'

Did she get a yellow card for that, didn't see it shown on the screen?

[Numero Uno]

15 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

Yes you're right, the highest paid women's pro footballer is on around 330,000 euros a year and not a month as a lot of our prima donna Premier league players are on.

It's a very simple argument though - when these women have 50K watching them every week their remuneration will increase in line........unfortunately average crowds in the WSL are circa 2-3K. That's the market talking whether people like it or not.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

It's a very simple argument though - when these women have 50K watching them every week their remuneration will increase in line........unfortunately average crowds in the WSL are circa 2-3K. That's the market talking whether people like it or not.

Yes I understand that, I think the attendances will improve after this showing.

[Rob k]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

It's a very simple argument though - when these women have 50K watching them every week their remuneration will increase in line........unfortunately average crowds in the WSL are circa 2-3K. That's the market talking whether people like it or not.

It’s not even the attendances - when the TV companies are prepared to pay up to 10m PER GAME, then the wages will increase 

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

Did she get a yellow card for that, didn't see it shown on the screen?

 

Yes

[ChippenhamRed]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

So it's a crime not to be a glory hunter, to not feel obligated to follow the masses.

I've done or said nothing to stop you and others enjoying your moment of glory (sic). I even offered my own congratulations to the Lionesses. 

All I did was highlight the folly of comparing the women's game to the men's. And that's now a crime? What, under your totalitarianism, would you have me do to mark the occasion?

I said attend, not watch....

No one said anything about crime. Those are your words. Your inability to find joy in great collective moments of national sporting achievement doesn’t make you a criminal. It just makes you seem a bit boring. But don’t worry, they won’t put you in prison for that.

[TonyTonyTony]

Based on the celebrations of the womens team, if Southgates team manage to win the world cup i predict the entire country will be on the piss for an entire month. 

[MarcusX]

51 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Based on the celebrations of the womens team, if Southgates team manage to win the world cup i predict the entire country will be on the piss for an entire month. 

Given that it’ll be Xmas as well, I think you’re right!

Really enjoyed that game, thought it was very physical and that young German centre mid probably could have been sent off in another game (should have been booked way before she was)

Game management at the end was fantastic too.

I don’t know why people have to compare to men, just take it for what it is and that was a very good performance and throughly enjoyable.

Congrats girls  

[phantom]

How it all began 

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

 

2 hours ago, phantom said:

How it all began 

My Mum asked the same of me.

"Alan is only 9 and can't fathom why he can't play football".

Unfortunately, in my case the simple answer is that I was just rubbish!

[Numero Uno]

22 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

The England Ladies have always been decent, the professionalisation of the game has made them even better.  What the FA need to do is stay careful and remember that Women's football isn't Men's football and there are subtle differences and recognise that putting Phil Neville in charge was stupid, and ridiculous (not only was he not a very good men's football manager he didn't understand the women's game either), he completely derailed their world cup, Sarina Wiegman has been amazing for the women, its important I think for Women's football for the powers at be to remember not to try and not turn the Womans game into the Mens game.   I don't like it when people make direct comparisons with men's football its silly as though the rules are the same, the game is different, what you risk by doing this is creating the perception that the women's game isn't as good as the men's game because its not as quick or the shots are not as powerful, but on the flipside the women get more time on the ball, more dribbling and the range and types of shots as a result are quite often more entertaining.  The skills are the same they are just employed differently due to differing levels of physique and its important not to loose that perspective in some daft drive to draw direct comparisons between the genders.  I really like watching the ladies games from time to time, but the key thing is time, supporters only have so much time and money so the women's game needs to attract its own new fan base to be sustainable, and we shouldn't extrapolate the fans watching this as a 1:1 increase in the grassroots game as it wont be, there will be some who watch both but for the most part its will need a whole new fanbase and it might be in my view a great idea to make the women's away games for example PPV subscription for a period of time, as I'm not sure there would be the same amount of away travel for games.  It would get money into the game and be a more flexible method of consumption for a new fanbase. 

This is spot on tbh. The women need to attract their own regular fanbase to watch their own brand of football. That’s how the numbers will increase from National League attendance levels. Speaking from a personal view I have family and work commitments that allow me to watch BCFC but if you then add in going to BCFC Women’s games it’s just not viable for me and I’m sure many others (the vast majority imo) to commit the time and money to do both. My money, my choice is to watch Mens football. That’s an inconvenient issue that cannot be ignored and the BBC banging a drum won’t change it.

The other huge advantage men’s football in this country has is the pyramid system that has built up over a hundred years. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of blokes play at all levels from EPL to barely able to pass a ball 25 yards level on a Saturday and Sunday whereas everything being spoken of womens football is about kids and elite level, nothing in between. That will need sorting out big time, if the interest is there that is, for the game to grow to even 25% of the mens game in the long term.

If the powers that be just sit back and EXPECT the game to grow based on a fantastic tournament win for England which we all enjoyed they will be disappointed. Sponsorship, investment and attendance will always be based on demand and interest in the product being put out there ultimately.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Numero Uno

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

54 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

If the powers that be just sit back and EXPECT the game to grow based on a fantastic tournament win for England which we all enjoyed they will be disappointed. Sponsorship, investment and attendance will always be based on demand and interest in the product being put out there ultimately.

We have seen a lot of references to sponsorship, but most of those are going to feed directly into the very top level, the best players and the most televised teams.  What I find a little sad about the coverage, is I think they are missing the point when they covered for example the Blackburn youth setup, yes its produced 3 of the England team, but those players just got hoovered up by bigger teams who didn't necessarily have the same commitment to women's football, but will benefit from the revenue while Blackburn will still be mostly a small affair and end up as a feeder team.  

[Numero Uno]

16 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

We have seen a lot of references to sponsorship, but most of those are going to feed directly into the very top level, the best players and the most televised teams.  What I find a little sad about the coverage, is I think they are missing the point when they covered for example the Blackburn youth setup, yes its produced 3 of the England team, but those players just got hoovered up by bigger teams who didn't necessarily have the same commitment to women's football, but will benefit from the revenue while Blackburn will still be mostly a small affair and end up as a feeder team.  

This is the danger. Lots of rhetoric flying around with no real solutions. If this tournament is not built upon properly properly the game will be a largely elite sport for years to come. The only “solution” the head of the Women’s game has advanced is for Premier League clubs to get involved which, as we all know, means the game will be built from the top down rather than bottom up and controlled by a few based on commercial returns and the grass roots will get trampled all over.

[Cowshed]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

This is the danger. Lots of rhetoric flying around with no real solutions. If this tournament is not built upon properly properly the game will be a largely elite sport for years to come. The only “solution” the head of the Women’s game has advanced is for Premier League clubs to get involved which, as we all know, means the game will be built from the top down rather than bottom up and controlled by a few based on commercial returns and the grass roots will get trampled all over.

Football for females is not an elite sport. Far more females play football at grass roots level than elite level. Female football isnt built from the top down. A girl will start out in grass roots football and then if she is good enough will play and train at a regional development centre, her local County FA and then she might if exceptional attract the interest of a pro club. That is the FA and its regional FA's controlling football. The top the pro clubs control the top = WSL league teams look after what is a small % of football. 

 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Football for females is not an elite sport. Far more females play football at grass roots level than elite level. Female football isnt built from the top down. A girl will start out in grass roots football and then if she is good enough will play and train at a regional development centre, her local County FA and then she might if exceptional attract the interest of a pro club. That is the FA and its regional FA's controlling football. The top the pro clubs control the top = WSL league teams look after what is a small % of football. 

That's just how the pyramid works.  But the cash needs to filter down from the elite tiers.   To build a broader set of professional clubs and players in professional teams. 

[Cowshed]

8 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

That's just how the pyramid works.  But the cash needs to filter down from the elite tiers.   To build a broader set of professional clubs and players in professional teams. 

Its not a just how. Its the FA reacting to the challenges of female football. The structure is very different to the male game and has to be.

You appear there to want cash to build professional clubs,which would take money away from grass rooots football and focus on elites. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cowshed

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

4 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Its not a just how. Its the FA reacting to the challenges of female football. The structure is very different to the male game and has to be.

You appear there to want cash to build professional clubs,which would take money away from grass rooots football and focus on elites. 

You can do both if you want to expand the women's game, there has to be a realisation that even with the current professionalisation of the women's game wages are still small, and in order to become a professional athlete you need to give up your day job and have enough money to do it.  You have to get more money into at least the top 3 tiers of women's football to enable the professional game to grow, and the grass roots to have a realistic prospect of a career football even if its not the top top tier.