|
Post by Deez on Jun 15, 2015 10:10:51 GMT
I don't buy the reason that the money invested into a womens' team would eat away of the mens' transfer fund. I can't see us getting into the final stage of signing Benzema but refusing to give him an extra £5,000 a week so the women can pay for the bus travel to an away game.
The investment would be so small in comparison to the financial power of 'the brand', especially since we have pretty much all the sporting technologies, training facilities & PR departments already in place.
Basically the only valid reason I'm seeing against it is "what's the point?"
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Jun 15, 2015 10:11:53 GMT
Is there any evidence that this is remotely realistic? Do Aresnal, Liverpool or any of the major ladies football team have any impact on their male teams, in any way shape or form? I find that very unlikely. No there isn't but do we leave the womens team struggling when we could use money from the mens team to but better players for the womens team? I don't know how the finances work for Chelsea and Arsenal but I would imagine running one of these teams would take a lot of money to start up and it wouldn't start repaying for years. Then I'd imagine we wouldn't be happy with a mediocre team. We'd want the best. More investment (possibly) None of that is based on anything approaching fact. Why would it take a lot of money? Transfer fees are tiny, wages are tiny. You can use the same ground the reserves play in. I haven't given a potential ladies team any thought at all but using the argument that it will impact on the men's team is completely erroneous. If you have other reasons for not wanting it to happen fine that but one is ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:16:46 GMT
No there isn't but do we leave the womens team struggling when we could use money from the mens team to but better players for the womens team? I don't know how the finances work for Chelsea and Arsenal but I would imagine running one of these teams would take a lot of money to start up and it wouldn't start repaying for years. Then I'd imagine we wouldn't be happy with a mediocre team. We'd want the best. More investment (possibly) None of that is based on anything approaching fact. Why would it take a lot of money? Transfer fees are tiny, wages are tiny. You can use the same ground the reserves play in. I haven't given a potential ladies team any thought at all but using the argument that it will impact on the men's team is completely erroneous. If you have other reasons for not wanting it to happen fine that but one is ridiculous. The main reason was that it wouldn't share any identity/history with our club. That was just an argument based on people saying the Glazers wouldn't fork out the cash for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:19:08 GMT
I don't buy the reason that the money invested into a womens' team would eat away of the mens' transfer fund. I can't see us getting into the final stage of signing Benzema but refusing to give him an extra £5,000 a week so the women can pay for the bus travel to an away game. The investment would be so small in comparison to the financial power of 'the brand', especially since we have pretty much all the sporting technologies, training facilities & PR departments already in place. Basically the only valid reason I'm seeing against it is "what's the point?" It kind of falls into that category too. If no one is interested and therefore it doesn't cost/make much, what is the actual point?
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Jun 15, 2015 10:20:54 GMT
None of that is based on anything approaching fact. Why would it take a lot of money? Transfer fees are tiny, wages are tiny. You can use the same ground the reserves play in. I haven't given a potential ladies team any thought at all but using the argument that it will impact on the men's team is completely erroneous. If you have other reasons for not wanting it to happen fine that but one is ridiculous. The main reason was that it wouldn't share any identity/history with our club. That was just an argument based on people saying the Glazers wouldn't fork out the cash for it. That was unclear in your original post. It is a much more valid reason than the Glazer's refusal to stump up 2 or 3 million (which is probably wildly over the top.) to start the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Jun 15, 2015 10:22:45 GMT
I don't buy the reason that the money invested into a womens' team would eat away of the mens' transfer fund. I can't see us getting into the final stage of signing Benzema but refusing to give him an extra £5,000 a week so the women can pay for the bus travel to an away game. The investment would be so small in comparison to the financial power of 'the brand', especially since we have pretty much all the sporting technologies, training facilities & PR departments already in place. Basically the only valid reason I'm seeing against it is "what's the point?" It kind of falls into that category too. If no one is interested and therefore it doesn't cost/make much, what is the actual point? Who watches the other teams play? I suppose the argument is that female Utd fans would obviously have an affiliation for it, maybe some of the men. I'll ask my sister later on. She's been a Utd fan since she was born and also plays a bit and watches ladies football. Her opinion might be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:25:48 GMT
It kind of falls into that category too. If no one is interested and therefore it doesn't cost/make much, what is the actual point? Who watches the other teams play? I suppose the argument is that female Utd fans would obviously have an affiliation for it, maybe some of the men. I'll ask my sister later on. She's been a Utd fan since she was born and also plays a bit and watches ladies football. Her opinion might be interesting. Thanks, I would be interested. If you could ask her if she'd prefer a League with its own new teams that'd be good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:31:06 GMT
The main reason was that it wouldn't share any identity/history with our club. That was just an argument based on people saying the Glazers wouldn't fork out the cash for it. That was very unclear in your original post. It is a much more valid reason than the Glazer's refusal to stump up 2 or 3 million (which is probably wildly over the top.) to start the thing. My original post was a complete load of waffle. I had some thoughts while I was at work. Think it was sort of in response to Carbs I think it was saying the Glazers aren't interested in paying for it. They probably aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jun 15, 2015 10:32:20 GMT
The expense of running a women's team would make absolutely fuck all difference to United's transfer spending power and general funding for the men's team. The top women's footballers earn less in a year than Wayne Rooney does in a day. There are a few exceptional female footballers but overall the quality is atrocious, but that doesn't mean it should be completely written off. The quality of football is frequently fucking abysmal in the men's lower leagues too, just kick and rush shite from the 50's.
I personally have no real interest in women's football, and the coverage it gets from the BBC is massively out of proportion with the public's interest in it, but then what do you expect from the BBC? They're absolutely obsessed with meeting quotas on women and minorities on their screens. To be fair the coverage isn't harming anyone, so while it's not a real reflection of demand for it, they might as well show it I guess? I wouldn't have any issue with United having a women's team and it would be nice to have yet another opportunity to stick it to Arsenal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:33:07 GMT
Maybe change the title and add a poll. Would you like, not like, don't care kind of poll
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:39:41 GMT
That was very unclear in your original post. It is a much more valid reason than the Glazer's refusal to stump up 2 or 3 million (which is probably wildly over the top.) to start the thing. My original post was a complete load of waffle. I had some thoughts while I was at work. Think it was sort of in response to Carbs I think it was saying the Glazers aren't interested in paying for it. They probably aren't. well thanks for making a new topic about something that we had a small chat about over a week ago.....
|
|
|
Post by ZlattackRed on Jun 15, 2015 10:41:22 GMT
My original post was a complete load of waffle. I had some thoughts while I was at work. Think it was sort of in response to Carbs I think it was saying the Glazers aren't interested in paying for it. They probably aren't. well thanks for making a new topic about something that we had a small chat about over a week ago..... Please continue debating. Its boring having nothing much to read in the Summer Transfers thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:43:28 GMT
well thanks for making a new topic about something that we had a small chat about over a week ago..... Please continue debating. Its boring having nothing much to read in the Summer Transfers thread the topic has had some actual debate since my last input so i'll just let the others debate it out.
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Jun 15, 2015 10:44:18 GMT
yes, if anything this thread at least keeps me out of the summer transfer cesspit.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 10:59:44 GMT
Maybe change the title and add a poll. Would you like, not like, don't care kind of poll Done
|
|