|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 14:59:46 GMT
I watched a 5 day test match in South Africa recently with literally no one in attendance, should we take all test cricket off the air apart from England, Australia and India? Totally different argument and sport mate.As Werrington as already said the broadcasters won’t pull the plug on the coverage because they’re frightened to death of the reaction.As time goes by and the younger generation play and watch more women’s football(like you’ve said)it may change but at this moment in time there’s no way for me it warrants thr coverage it get’s But there's a shit load of available channels though mate so I'm not sure that matters so much. And viewing figures are actually good despite attendances at games being poor in the main......
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 15:01:59 GMT
I watched a 5 day test match in South Africa recently with literally no one in attendance, should we take all test cricket off the air apart from England, Australia and India? If the norm at all test matches I guess it would make sense but it isn't a weekly thing and crowds dwindling from very poor to extremely poor. You've found a very extreme example in a foreign country to prove a point there I'm merely making the point that TV audiences and audiences at a live games are two different things, the viewing figures for Women's football as well as the cricket Hundred for example are actually very good...............
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 15:03:23 GMT
Totally different argument and sport mate.As Werrington as already said the broadcasters won’t pull the plug on the coverage because they’re frightened to death of the reaction.As time goes by and the younger generation play and watch more women’s football(like you’ve said)it may change but at this moment in time there’s no way for me it warrants thr coverage it get’s But there's a shit load of available channels though mate so I'm not sure that matters so much. And viewing figures are actually good despite attendances at games being poor in the main...... I get that but the point was originally getting at is why should money be pumped into a sport that isn't working. Throwing money at s dead duck for me and if the league was say to fold we'd see every excuse going as to why it failed. Bottom line is, at the moment despite the best efforts it simply isn't getting people through the turnstiles. They can show it live, I agree. The point is no matter how much they try to plug it, especially during the Premier League and now having the results on Soccer Special, it isn't happening
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 8, 2022 15:03:37 GMT
Totally different argument and sport mate.As Werrington as already said the broadcasters won’t pull the plug on the coverage because they’re frightened to death of the reaction.As time goes by and the younger generation play and watch more women’s football(like you’ve said)it may change but at this moment in time there’s no way for me it warrants thr coverage it get’s But there's a shit load of available channels though mate so I'm not sure that matters so much. And viewing figures are actually good despite attendances at games being poor in the main...... Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 15:11:01 GMT
But there's a shit load of available channels though mate so I'm not sure that matters so much. And viewing figures are actually good despite attendances at games being poor in the main...... Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? There was a game shown on the BBC which as you'd expect got decent figures, 3 million odd but Vanessa Feltz Goes Dogging would get those figures on the BBC let's be honest. It seems this TV figure is rolled out every time TV figures are questioned on any site rather than the weekly games .
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 8, 2022 15:12:54 GMT
Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? There was a game shown on the BBC which as you'd expect got decent figures, 3 million odd but Vanessa Feltz Goes Dogging would get those figures on the BBC let's be honest. It seems this TV figure is rolled out every time TV figures are questioned on any site rather than the weekly games . 🤣Vanessa Feltz goes dogging😮🤣She was only on TV yesterday telling everyone how much sex she’s getting at 60 as well🤣
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 15:14:08 GMT
There was a game shown on the BBC which as you'd expect got decent figures, 3 million odd but Vanessa Feltz Goes Dogging would get those figures on the BBC let's be honest. It seems this TV figure is rolled out every time TV figures are questioned on any site rather than the weekly games . 🤣Vanessa Feltz goes dogging😮🤣She was only on TV yesterday telling everyone how much sex she’s getting at 60 as well🤣 I don't want to picture that hideous image. I just had a Muffin.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 15:19:58 GMT
But there's a shit load of available channels though mate so I'm not sure that matters so much. And viewing figures are actually good despite attendances at games being poor in the main...... Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? On satellite TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on satellite TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 8, 2022 15:22:42 GMT
Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? On pay per view TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on pay per view TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? Someone actually pays then to watch women’s football😮🤣Fair enough mate they’re better than I thought
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 8, 2022 15:23:33 GMT
Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? On pay per view TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on pay per view TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? The less rugby league on the tv the better quite frankly 😂
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 15:26:32 GMT
On pay per view TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on pay per view TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? Someone actually pays then to watch women’s football😮🤣Fair enough mate they’re better than I thought Sorry pay per view is probably the wrong terminology, it's SKY TV figures essentially so people watching women's football as part of their subscription.......
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Mar 8, 2022 15:32:58 GMT
women's football gets coverage in the same way Netball, domestic rugby union, non majors Golf do. There is enough of an audience to support it.
It'll never be as big as men's football but it doesn't pretend it will. And after the FA's half century ban, A bit of mens funded exposure is not a bad thing. What if somebody's daughter or granddaughter goes and plays for England? Does it not count in some eyes?.
If people don't want to watch it they could always change the channel. You're not forced to engage with it, in the same way I have little idea about the Six Nations. Women attending or playing football won't hurt you.
Nobody expected Stoke to pump in millions but they're clearly treated it like nearly everything else, an half arsed attempt at doing the bare minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 15:36:25 GMT
Have you got these viewing figures to see then mate and what do you class as decent figures? On satellite TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on satellite TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? To be fair Prestwich, no one is clamouring for women's football to be taken off the TV but giving the game a reality check. The fact is, if the Stoke ladies team is not attaching interest of any note, why should it be subsidised and staff not move on rather than throw money at it?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 8, 2022 15:36:51 GMT
women's football gets coverage in the same way Netball, domestic rugby union, non majors Golf do. There is enough of an audience to support it. It'll never be as big as men's football but it doesn't pretend it will. And after the FA's half century ban, A bit of mens funded exposure is not a bad thing. What if somebody's daughter or granddaughter goes and plays for England? Does it not count in some eyes?. If people don't want to watch it they could always change the channel. You're not forced to engage with it, in the same way I have little idea about the Six Nations. Women attending or playing football won't hurt you. Nobody expected Stoke to pump in millions but they're clearly treated it like nearly everything else, an half arsed attempt at doing the bare minimum. Maybe. We clearly don't know anything though. There's just generic stuff out there and no specifics.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 8, 2022 15:41:26 GMT
I don’t think the chief cheerleader is very happy
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 15:42:29 GMT
On satellite TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on satellite TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? To be fair Prestwich, no one is clamouring for women's football to be taken off the TV but giving the game a reality check. The fact is, if the Stoke ladies team is not attaching interest of any note, why should it be subsidised and staff not move on rather than throw money at it? Sorry but the thread specifically mentioned "pulling the plug" and there being a disproportionate amount of coverage to women's football, all I'm saying that as a product on TV is hold it's own against many sports, Rugby League being one example. As for Stoke, well the men's team have been subsidised to the tune of £130m over the last 2 season so a few crumbs thrown at the womens team to help promote the game and female participation in football wouldn't be a great hardship in the grand scheme of things. Although I don't know the story behind all the social media posts so it would be unfair of me to speculate on what's been happening in the background..........
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Mar 8, 2022 16:07:36 GMT
I have thought in the past that the women's team seems a missed opportunity for Stoke and that a lot more could have been done. Comments like the below are unhelpful however popular or unpopular women's football is or isn't. In a parallel universe where women's football wasn't banned by the FA and women weren't discriminated against by and in comparison to men, it'd probably be more popular than the men's game. Support and coverage of the game are long, long, looooong overdue. At the very least, now girls can see football is something they can do. Then as more girls take up the sport, the standard will improve. It gets far too much attention on the mainstream media for me whether you agree or not.With the amount of folk interested and in attendance it doesn’t warrant the coverage it gets at the minute. I watched a 5 day test match in South Africa recently with literally no one in attendance, should we take all test cricket off the air apart from England, Australia and India? Totally different argument and sport mate.As Werrington as already said the broadcasters won’t pull the plug on the coverage because they’re frightened to death of the reaction.As time goes by and the younger generation play and watch more women’s football(like you’ve said)it may change but at this moment in time there’s no way for me it warrants thr coverage it get’s Women's football isn't a different sport to men's football though is it? It's the national game in England and possibly (I'd know for sure if I lived there) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. I used to love the British Touring Car Championship but lost interest when it moved away from any TV I had access to. I stopped attending live races partly because I didn't know the drivers. The names and personalities are needed to help build a sport and that isn't going to happen without any coverage. Speaking of BTCC, do you remember Grandstand on the BBC and the stuff that was on there (and mostly coverage of men's sports at that)? Women's football often gets criticised by many (and generally men) it seems because it's women playing the sport. Not that I'm saying it the reason you're criticising it, but it happens a lot and is one of the reasons I called your comments unhelpful.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Mar 8, 2022 16:26:26 GMT
Whilst attendances might not be great (and I admit I have zero knowledge of or interest in women’s football) it does seem utterly bizarre that a club , supposedly awash with money it can’t spend on the men’s team, doesn’t see this as a great opportunity to invest in the community and produce an outstanding set up to represent both the club and the city. At the very least it would paint an image of a progressive organisation.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Mar 8, 2022 16:30:36 GMT
i wonder if spend on the womens game/team goes on the balance sheet for FFP?
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 8, 2022 16:35:09 GMT
On satellite TV the Women's Super League averages around 113,000 per game according to the last set of figures, and around 500,000 on free to air TV. To give you a comparison that compares roughly with Rugby League's Super League. The Championship as a comparison averages 178,000 per game on satellite TV, the highest viewing figures this season being Forest v Coventry which pulled in about 460,000 viewers. The trick is not to compare it to mens football as it's chalk and cheese, but it certainly holds it's own against sports like Rugby League and I'm not seen a clamour for their coverage to be reduced? To be fair Prestwich, no one is clamouring for women's football to be taken off the TV but giving the game a reality check. The fact is, if the Stoke ladies team is not attaching interest of any note, why should it be subsidised and staff not move on rather than throw money at it? I tend to agree with that. But I guess it depends on what Chloe Jones was promised when she took the job (and what she therefore told the players that she recruited). If she was told that we were really going to go for it, fund it properly with a view to achieving X in X years time, then I haven't seen much evidence of that and she probably has got genuine grievance.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2022 18:37:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 8, 2022 19:00:47 GMT
Women's football clearly has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near the level of men's league football, but maybe not so far if compared to non league, Sunday league etc. Due to all the hindrances already mentioned on this thread the women's game is playing catch up. The powers that be, and the clubs, should be doing all they can to help the women's game realise its potential. Girls, from as young as 6, are now training and playing regularly and my guess is that it won't be too long until there are as many girls as boys playing football in organised teams The professional game should be giving these girls the role models that boys have had for 100 years or more. At the elite level we already have the Women's World Cup and WSL, so why shouldn't professional clubs, such as Stoke City, take the women's game seriously? It's not just boys who want to go to matches with their dad (or mum ), nor should it be. A successful, and well advertised, Stoke City women's team but would be an asset for future fan recruitment. Might even help to ease the pain of the men's current failures
|
|
|
Post by TinkerT on Mar 8, 2022 19:25:55 GMT
The club has never been interested in the woman's team. They will go on a good run or a cup run then the club will get involved but money wise and everything else the club wants nothing to do with them. It's a shame really as the clubs don't have much funding and it wouldn't take much money from the club to really make it a big club and have a good go at things.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 8, 2022 23:59:02 GMT
This is what I mean, it says a lot but says absolutely fuck all. What are the plans? Humiliate them ffs 😂
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Mar 9, 2022 5:14:25 GMT
Well, we know our owners are xenophobic so we can probably add misogynist and chauvinistic to that.
For a tenth of what they paid in tax at bet365, they could have the ladies in the premier league, with other midland clubs like Leicester, Brum and Villa.
Anything invested in the women's game gets written off against FFP, so they could have had some fiddling and balancing of books there also if they had a bit about them.
As usual a million years behind everyone else and I was going to say finger off the pulse, but I don't think they even have a pulse.
Zero ambition or foresight, but not surprising from the owners who look like they are going to bundle the men's team into tier 3 football once again.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 9, 2022 7:11:25 GMT
Well, we know our owners are xenophobic so we can probably add misogynist and chauvinistic to that. For a tenth of what they paid in tax at bet365, they could have the ladies in the premier league, with other midland clubs like Leicester, Brum and Villa. Anything invested in the women's game gets written off against FFP, so they could have had some fiddling and balancing of books there also if they had a bit about them. As usual a million years behind everyone else and I was going to say finger off the pulse, but I don't think they even have a pulse. Zero ambition or foresight, but not surprising from the owners who look like they are going to bundle the men's team into tier 3 football once again. Our owners are xenophobic?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 9, 2022 7:52:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 9, 2022 8:20:44 GMT
Well, we know our owners are xenophobic so we can probably add misogynist and chauvinistic to that. For a tenth of what they paid in tax at bet365, they could have the ladies in the premier league, with other midland clubs like Leicester, Brum and Villa. Anything invested in the women's game gets written off against FFP, so they could have had some fiddling and balancing of books there also if they had a bit about them. As usual a million years behind everyone else and I was going to say finger off the pulse, but I don't think they even have a pulse. Zero ambition or foresight, but not surprising from the owners who look like they are going to bundle the men's team into tier 3 football once again. Our owners are xenophobic? They give british jobs to british people, so they must be
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Mar 9, 2022 11:21:49 GMT
Well, we know our owners are xenophobic so we can probably add misogynist and chauvinistic to that. For a tenth of what they paid in tax at bet365, they could have the ladies in the premier league, with other midland clubs like Leicester, Brum and Villa. Anything invested in the women's game gets written off against FFP, so they could have had some fiddling and balancing of books there also if they had a bit about them. As usual a million years behind everyone else and I was going to say finger off the pulse, but I don't think they even have a pulse. Zero ambition or foresight, but not surprising from the owners who look like they are going to bundle the men's team into tier 3 football once again. From what I've read and seen of this it appears as though this kind of sums up all things Stoke City FC right now! That the potentials there to build something good & worthwhile as the footings are in place to step up to the next level but the powers that be have rested on their laurels & are clearly happy to leave things festering away in the misguided belief all's good in the world. & by the time something clearly needs maintaining or repairing its all to late! Stoke City Football Club, had it all and mismanaged badly has taken it all away!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 9, 2022 11:30:56 GMT
Well, we know our owners are xenophobic so we can probably add misogynist and chauvinistic to that. For a tenth of what they paid in tax at bet365, they could have the ladies in the premier league, with other midland clubs like Leicester, Brum and Villa. Anything invested in the women's game gets written off against FFP, so they could have had some fiddling and balancing of books there also if they had a bit about them. As usual a million years behind everyone else and I was going to say finger off the pulse, but I don't think they even have a pulse. Zero ambition or foresight, but not surprising from the owners who look like they are going to bundle the men's team into tier 3 football once again. From what I've read and seen of this it appears as though this kind of sums up all things Stoke City FC right now! That the potentials there to build something good & worthwhile as the footings are in place to step up to the next level but the powers that be have rested on their laurels & are clearly happy to leave things festering away in the misguided belief all's good in the world. & by the time something clearly needs maintaining or repairing its all to late! Stoke City Football Club, had it all and mismanaged badly has taken it all away! That's definitely what it reads as. But again we sit here none the wiser really. What are these plans she has wanted? No one is coming out of this in a good light imo. I think if the plans were shared and they were reasonable then there would be a load of people ready to jump down their throats. As it is we know nothing.
|
|