Willow Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They should know their place by now... http://216.47.228.178/ProdImages/9629_lg.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They should know their place by now... Thought they were all supposed to be lesbians anyway mind, but even if not most of them are too young to be married, so I don't really see how the joke makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross magoo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Get ya tits oot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Get ya tits oot! http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5766/l45f796e7ef456197672323ho9.jpg I'm the one in the background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Get ya tits oot! http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5766/l45f796e7ef456197672323ho9.jpg I'm the one in the background. what a tit! lol I mean that in the nicest possible way! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Kelly Smith > Alan Smith fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross magoo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. There's one paragraph in the article about that. There's another paragraph about the women's game being 100yrs behind the men's game. There's further paragraphs about broadcasting/sponsorship money issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. There's one paragraph in the article about that. There's another paragraph about the women's game being 100yrs behind the men's game. There's further paragraphs about broadcasting/sponsorship money issues. all it says about the mens game is that the men's game has had a 100-year start on women's football which it would not have had, if things had been left to run their natural course by the way. Women were playing football at the start, until the FA banned them. All it says about sponsorship issues is that they are looking for more sponsorship, and get more broadcasting. No where does it say that they want a slice of any pie that men want to gorge on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Get ya tits oot! http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5766/l45f796e7ef456197672323ho9.jpg I'm the one in the background. Them people who were sitting the seats behind you sure made a swift exit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 A separate competition for women only is sexist and as such should not be endorsed or subsidised by the FA in any way. Women should be able to compete with male footballers for places in the full England squad. Equality for all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Kelly Smith > Alan Smith fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross magoo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. There's one paragraph in the article about that. There's another paragraph about the women's game being 100yrs behind the men's game. There's further paragraphs about broadcasting/sponsorship money issues. all it says about the mens game is that the men's game has had a 100-year start on women's football which it would not have had, if things had been left to run their natural course by the way. Women were playing football at the start, until the FA banned them. All it says about sponsorship issues is that they are looking for more sponsorship, and get more broadcasting. No where does it say that they want a slice of any pie that men want to gorge on. The point i'm making is that there isn't a market to fund high wages in British women's football. There is in the USA because it's more popular and there obviously is in the mens game for the same reason. Am I right or am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. There's one paragraph in the article about that. There's another paragraph about the women's game being 100yrs behind the men's game. There's further paragraphs about broadcasting/sponsorship money issues. all it says about the mens game is that the men's game has had a 100-year start on women's football which it would not have had, if things had been left to run their natural course by the way. Women were playing football at the start, until the FA banned them. All it says about sponsorship issues is that they are looking for more sponsorship, and get more broadcasting. No where does it say that they want a slice of any pie that men want to gorge on. The point i'm making is that there isn't a market to fund high wages in British women's football. There is in the USA because it's more popular and there obviously is in the mens game for the same reason. Am I right or am I wrong? Wrong. lol. They aren't asking for high wages, but the minimum wage they have been given, which is approximately what £40 a day is, is insulting and in most cases will not cover any wages lost by being there. Hardly a way to inspire future players is it? There is enough money in the women's game to fund higher compensation for a one off competition like the world cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkwdavis2001 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY IN MY OPINION: Who the hell compensate's their fellas for having to cook, clean and iron while they are away? mackems.gif < / Flak Jacket On > Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Think someones already done that one. They were nominated for the best new comedy awards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross magoo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They'd deserve more if there was a huge worldwide interest in women's football. There isn't and they don't. Aye, that's why over a million tickets were sold at the recent world cup. To be fair, people don't spend money on Sky subscriptions to watch the women's world cup, they spend it to watch the EPL, La Liga and Champions League. If there was as many sqillions of £$£$£$£$£$£ floating around the women's game as there is in the men's game then I could understand them deserving a bigger slice of the cake, but there blatantly isn't and anybody who says there is is kidding themselves. If all males were as reluctant to get it as you are, then no wonder lads are doing so poorly in their GCSE's and A Levels. It's not about comparison to the men's game, it's about comparitive compensation (for the wages they lost) with Sweden and the USA, who are of an approximate standing (including financially) in WOMEN's football. There's one paragraph in the article about that. There's another paragraph about the women's game being 100yrs behind the men's game. There's further paragraphs about broadcasting/sponsorship money issues. all it says about the mens game is that the men's game has had a 100-year start on women's football which it would not have had, if things had been left to run their natural course by the way. Women were playing football at the start, until the FA banned them. All it says about sponsorship issues is that they are looking for more sponsorship, and get more broadcasting. No where does it say that they want a slice of any pie that men want to gorge on. The point i'm making is that there isn't a market to fund high wages in British women's football. There is in the USA because it's more popular and there obviously is in the mens game for the same reason. Am I right or am I wrong? Wrong. lol. They aren't asking for high wages, but the minimum wage they have been given, which is approximately what £40 a day is, is insulting and in most cases will not cover any wages lost by being there. Hardly a way to inspire future players is it? There is enough money in the women's game to fund higher compensation for a one off competition like the world cup. So are they asking for higher wages or are they not asking for higher wages? I'm confused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They're not actually asking for wages, but compensation for loss of earnings. Yes they are asking for more. Not sure why I bother, because very few people actually intend to rise above the schoolyard... The money they have been given is approx. the minimum wage, which in most cases means losing money they would have otherwise earnt and makes it difficult when paying a mortgage, etc. (Despite what daft people will say, a lot of women pay their own way in this world) They got paid more compensation, for the European Championships 2 years ago, which had less TV money for it. The budget that is already covered by the FA for the womens game could easily afford a more realistic increase to cover any loss of earnings. The fact that there is now more TV money in the womens game means that this budget should be increased in any case. (Although not necessary to make a more reasonable offer) They do not need to take any of the slice of the pie of the mens game to do this. Allegedly the reason is because they are having a "strategic review." However, the FA is the Football Association, not the mens football association, so even if it was necessary (which it isn't) it would not be unreasonable to increase the budget for Womens football, when you consider that it could easily be covered by just equalling the money spent on McLarens recent trip to LA to see Beckham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 A separate competition for women only is sexist and as such should not be endorsed or subsidised by the FA in any way. Women should be able to compete with male footballers for places in the full England squad. Equality for all. The thing is though, FIFA won't allow women in mens squads. They can say it's because women are not as physically strong enough, but personally I think it's because the men in suits are scared in case a few are actually good enough to get in. They want to keep the delusion of grandeur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I've no problem with the women being compensated for playing, but we've got to remember the level the women's game is at currently. At the moment there's not enough interest in the women's game at club level to make it possible for women to become full-time professional footballers in this country. If there was, then they would be. If they were, then they wouldn't be complaining about losing 2 weeks pay from their regular jobs while heading off to the World Cup. If there's not enough interest from the public to make it worthwhile for teams to go professional, then that's because the standard of the product offered does not, in the opinion of the consumer, warrant it. Therefore the women players (Like most male players, myself included in my Sunday league team!) remain amateur. We, like they, play for fun. The FA turning round and saying that they'll give the women a couple of thousand extra for 5 weeks every 4 years is not going to change the reality of this situation. Women aren't staying at home instead of representing England at the World Cup because they can't afford to. To add one further point, the Women's World Cup has been on the sporting calendar for years now. It coming round shoulnd't be a surprise to any aspiring female footballers. Surely all employers give paid holidays these years? Did the ladies not have the foresight to book these couple of weeks well in advance? OK, perhaps they don't get 5 weeks holiday allocation but 2-3 weeks paid plus the rest unpaid and then 5 weeks worth of pay from the FA should make up the shortfall for the other couple of weeks, even if it's below your normal rate of pay. I mean, surely if you're planning on possibly going to these events this is the sort of thing you consider, right? Hell, I booked most of the men's World Cup off and I was only watching it in the pub! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 A separate competition for women only is sexist and as such should not be endorsed or subsidised by the FA in any way. Women should be able to compete with male footballers for places in the full England squad. Equality for all. The thing is though, FIFA won't allow women in mens squads. They can say it's because women are not as physically strong enough, but personally I think it's because the men in suits are scared in case a few are actually good enough to get in. They want to keep the delusion of grandeur. Plenty of men aren't physically strong enough to play professional football, but they'd be allowed to try! If Newcastle can find a female footballer who is better than the men, then let's sign her. However I can't see that at this stage - The only woman I've seen with any talent is that Brazilian Marta. And whether she's genuinely talented or just good compared to those she's playing against is open to interpretation. I mean, I remember Celestine Babayaro showboating on his debut against someone really crap like Stevenage (Might well have been them) in the FA cup, but he was quickly found out against decent players. I'm not saying Marta isn't as good as the men, but just that the question remains. I'd be happy to see her given a chance in the men's game though, but I understand the reasons why women are kept out of the men's game at the moment. If women were allowed in the men's game, it would become a circus with teams signing women for publicity etc rather than based on their talent. OK, this would quickly die down and the women would have to fight for places on their own merits but initially I think it's fair to say it would be a shambles. Perhaps it's a shambles we should allow? Ultimately, at the moment I don't think there's many, if any, women footballers who would make it at even the lower end of the professional game but in theory if they're good enough they should be allowed to play, I can't find a rational argument against that. I just don't think they're good enough. That's not to say they can't be one day, but I don't think that day is now or indeed any time soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Saint Andy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Get ya tits oot! http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5766/l45f796e7ef456197672323ho9.jpg I'm the one in the background. see matty's settling into norwich alright... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Get ya tits oot! http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5766/l45f796e7ef456197672323ho9.jpg I'm the one in the background. see matty's settling into norwich alright... My mate shall be gutted about that comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now