England Women, Champions of Europe

[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?