Nevilles.Wear.Prada
Full Member
Get this:- 3.5bil women in the world, there must a few messi and maradonas there some where. We are missing out.
In reality, the choice isn't even difficult Lyon are the best team in Europe, PSG are probably the second best, they respectively have a 5 and 7m annual budgets.I have a question, and I know it's a bit of a stupid one and it doesn't really work this way, but...
If you had a choice between developing a women's team, from youth level all the way up, which includes getting players, developing infrastructure, putting money towards promotion, getting coaches etc or buying a player for our first team, what would you prefer?
Fair, but surely the initial development from the ground up would be quite expensive?In reality, the choice isn't even difficult Lyon are the best team in Europe, PSG are probably the second best, they respectively have a 5 and 7m annual budgets.
If you had a choice between walking, or chewing gum, what would you prefer?I have a question, and I know it's a bit of a stupid one and it doesn't really work this way, but...
If you had a choice between developing a women's team, from youth level all the way up, which includes getting players, developing infrastructure, putting money towards promotion, getting coaches etc or buying a player for our first team, what would you prefer?
Well if you have a set amount of money to spend over the course of a certain amount of time then no, it might be a choice as to how you allocate resources.If you had a choice between walking, or chewing gum, what would you prefer?
Or perhaps, I know this is crazy but stick with me here, could you do both at the same time?
What would be expensive? United have the The Cliff, women football is generally played on the same grounds than U21 football and United could use Old Trafford for big CL games, there is nothing big to purchase outside of player. Also the teams I have mentioned are the equivalent of Barcelona and Real Madrid.Fair, but surely the initial development from the ground up would be quite expensive?
What are you talking about?Well if you have a set amount of money to spend over the course of a certain amount of time then no, it might be a choice as to how you allocate resources.
That would be a disgrace. We would have to split all our revenue equally between the mens and womens teams.In reality, the choice isn't even difficult Lyon are the best team in Europe, PSG are probably the second best, they respectively have a 5 and 7m annual budgets.
Considering that women's world champions can lose 2:5 to the Dallas U-15 side... I doubt itGet this:- 3.5bil women in the world, there must a few messi and maradonas there some where. We are missing out.
Why? I know that it's not the case in France.That would be a disgrace. We would have to split all our revenue equally between the mens and womens teams.
If we have a womens team they must have the same wage bill as the men. Otherwise it's discrimination.Why? I know that it's not the case in France.
Did you actually read the article?If we have a womens team they must have the same wage bill as the men. Otherwise it's discrimination.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...lers-are-demanding-equal-pay---and-its-in-al/
Also none of this business of making them play outside the main stadium like some PL womens teams have to. It's basically telling women they are second class citizens in the football world.
It's an opinion article, nothing else. And it's about the national team.If we have a womens team they must have the same wage bill as the men. Otherwise it's discrimination.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...lers-are-demanding-equal-pay---and-its-in-al/
Also none of this business of making them play outside the main stadium like some PL womens teams have to. It's basically telling women they are second class citizens in the football world.
Ignoring that you're pasting links to that disgraceful site...Considering that women's world champions can lose 2:5 to the Dallas U-15 side... I doubt it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html
Also
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html
We have a deaf team, we have community coaching clinics for local at risk kids. How do we profit from something that boring?Money.
Manchester City have invested heavily in the women's side of their game - poaching the best players and paying the highest wages. And to their credit, they've put equality at the heart of their new training facilities.
However, it's loss-making. They're not gaining anything financially from having a team in the Women's Super League. It's effectively a loss-leader - promoting a product at a loss, but knowing that it'll attract investment, support etc into the brand/club as a whole. The club don't have the interests of female footballers at the heart of their ambition, but rather the good PR and brand exposure that results from it. But in truth, said exposure is a fraction of what can be achieved from other initiatives.
Without wanting to sound sexist, there is a ceiling to the women's game, and it isn't that high. United acknowledged this long ago and chose to pursue other avenues.
How do you profit from something that is boring? That's the crux of the issue. Women's football, to the masses, isn't entertaining.
At this moment in time, there is no incentive to United investing in a women's game. And I doubt there ever will be.
You would do well to look into the history of the womens game, as it has well over a century of history to it, despite the FA trying it's best to destroy it in the 1920s.This is the point most so-called SJWs don't get - the mens game has almost two centuries worth of development, and has taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears (literally at times) to get to where it is today. People now expect the women's game to skip all that, and ride on the back of the men's game. If there was true equality, women would start exactly where men started, and try to build their game from that. Anything else would be unjust, and morality doesnt really have anything to do with it.
They are community initiatives, not a sizeable arm of a business.We have a deaf team, we have community coaching clinics for local at risk kids. How do we profit from something that boring?
Its already successful. Some of the arguments put forward in here suffer from serious moving of goalposts, sidestepping and idiocy.They are community initiatives, not a sizeable arm of a business.
Women's football isn't a charity. Manchester City are trying to instil parity between the men and women's game and however admirable that is, it won't be successful.
You don't seem to understand how equality is supposed to work.This is the point most so-called SJWs don't get - the mens game has almost two centuries worth of development, and has taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears (literally at times) to get to where it is today. People now expect the women's game to skip all that, and ride on the back of the men's game. If there was true equality, women would start exactly where men started, and try to build their game from that. Anything else would be unjust, and morality doesnt really have anything to do with it.
I'm talking about financial parity. Engagement parity. Sponsorship parity. Investment parity.Its already successful. Some of the arguments put forward in here suffer from serious moving of goalposts, sidestepping and idiocy.
Did you not consider that perhaps those expenses fell within our budget? No doubt we have a lot to spend, but we don't have unlimited funding. Anyway, I'm not sure why that's relevant, as we could obviously afford to develop and sustain a women's football team.What are you talking about?
If we can spunk 35m on Schneiderlin, 28m on Fellaini, pay Zlatan, Rooney & Schweinsteiger 850-900k a week collectively, then we are not in a position where we only have a set amount of money.
Money isn't an issue for us.
Its an utterly moronic argument. Ignorant, moronic and vacuous.I'm talking about financial parity. Engagement parity. Sponsorship parity. Investment parity.
Manchester City aren't profiting financially from having a women's game.
You are a bit harsh mate.Its an utterly moronic argument. Ignorant, moronic and vacuous.
I would bet that you dont play for a local club, have never played for a local club, have never been to watch local club football, dont have kids playing in local grassroots football and watch all your football on tv or at the pub. If you did any of those things you will understand exactly why I called your parity comments moronic.
The crux of the problem in these forums is those who dont see the point or are opposed to Utd having a womens team have absolutely no connection to the actual game, they have no connection to their local grassroots football community and have absolutley no idea of whats going on with respect to the growth of the game, its future or its impact on the community.
TV, pubs, playstation.
Nope. Its been going on in here for years and there is nothing harsh about pointing out ignorance and moronic argumentsYou are a bit harsh mate.
Most women's football teams were formed separately of the men's clubs, but then after many years, were brought under the umbrella of the nearest men's teams and often renamed after them.So why does that have to be United? If the women's game is ever to have any real credibility and stand on its own legs then they need their own clubs, otherwise they'll forever be in the shadow of the men's team.
Presumptuous much.Its an utterly moronic argument. Ignorant, moronic and vacuous.
I would bet that you dont play for a local club, have never played for a local club, have never been to watch local club football, dont have kids playing in local grassroots football and watch all your football on tv or at the pub. If you did any of those things you will understand exactly why I called your parity comments moronic.
The crux of the problem in these forums is those who dont see the point or are opposed to Utd having a womens team have absolutely no connection to the actual game, they have no connection to their local grassroots football community and have absolutley no idea of whats going on with respect to the growth of the game, its future or its impact on the community.
TV, pubs, playstation.
The reason people see it as something we should have isn't because of 'political correctness', but because we are the richest club in the world, yet one of the few in the country who don't have a senior women's team. We have a female academy system, but as soon as these girls reach 16, there's nowhere for them to go but elsewhere. Our female academy graduates are forced to leave, and many of them now play for rival clubs.Well why do you think we would have a women's team then? Let's face it will you go and watch them play. It's just in the modern world we are looked at by many is a disgrace (think that term is used every other post at the moment). The only reason you see it as a disgrace is because of political correctness it's not that girls are not allowed to play football, they can. You could even go and start a ladies team of your own and get them promoted through the divisions. I just don't see why it has got to be affiliated with Manchester United other than as a box ticking exercise (Man united ladies team, check).
If you don't see this
I'm pretty sure there was a story about a female player signing for a male club, although I can't remember if it was just a PR stunt.Is there a rule that says women can't play for our first team? Genuine question.
Ins't that just another flavour of political correctness though? Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against big clubs keeping a Women's team. Even if you only see it from a financial point of view it could make some sense for PR reasons and because it might get girls/women interested in the sport and subsequently club.The reason people see it as something we should have isn't because of 'political correctness', but because we are the richest club in the world, yet one of the few in the country who don't have a senior women's team. We have a female academy system, but as soon as these girls reach 16, there's nowhere for them to go but elsewhere. Our female academy graduates are forced to leave, and many of them now play for rival clubs.
Afaik one of the italien mid/lower table teams once "wanted" to sign one.I'm pretty sure there was a story about a female player signing for a male club, although I can't remember if it was just a PR stunt.
Thing is, we already do all of that stuff, and somehow manage to buy players for world record fees. We just have nowhere for the over-16 players to go once they've reaped the benefits of our female academy system. It's daft.I have a question, and I know it's a bit of a stupid one and it doesn't really work this way, but...
If you had a choice between developing a women's team, from youth level all the way up, which includes getting players, developing infrastructure, putting money towards promotion, getting coaches etc or buying a player for our first team, what would you prefer?
Add to that the fact the game has absolutely exploded in the last decade for girls and women in terms of playing numbers. Add in that the marketing opportunities alone could make it financially viable. Add in that football has become the worlds most popular team sport for women and girls. Add in the fact that football is the fastest growing team sport for girls at school. In 2016 the average attendance for the English FA WSL div 1 was 1128 but the Scottish Ladbrokes Div 1, a semi professional league had an average attendance of 565 and that division isnt collapsing. Dumbarton in the Scottish championship, a fully professional league averaged attendances of 1130 and the whole viability argument becomes rather silly.The reason people see it as something we should have isn't because of 'political correctness', but because we are the richest club in the world, yet one of the few in the country who don't have a senior women's team. We have a female academy system, but as soon as these girls reach 16, there's nowhere for them to go but elsewhere. Our female academy graduates are forced to leave, and many of them now play for rival clubs.
I don't understand the 'PC' point you and others keep trying to make.Ins't that just another flavour of political correctness though? Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against big clubs keeping a Women's team. Even if you only see it from a financial point of view it could make some sense for PR reasons and because it might get girls/women interested in the sport and subsequently club.
In Germany there are also a couple of 1st division ladies clubs who don't need a big men's team to carry them, most notably FFC Frankfurt and Turbine Potsdam, who also happen to be the two clubs who won the most titles.
Afaik one of the italien mid/lower table teams once "wanted" to sign one.