You're right, I don't think any of us have a problem with individuals like yourself not being interested in the Women's team or the women's game in general. That's absolutely fine, and the same as me not caring for cricket or golf.It's OK to say you have no interest in a sport pal. It doesn't say anything about you as a person. Good or bad.
Obviously different for the owners of our club as womens football is a part of it. They have a responsibility to it. I just don't think it's a big deal that he doesn't visit the women's team personally or have a personal interest in it.
I don’t think it matters if he visits the men or not either. Just get on with it I say.
Against my better judgement, I have to pick you up on this.It's OK to say you have no interest in a sport pal.
You can literally do both, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. The amount of money ineos are wasting there’s no excuses.He's got every right to focus on the men's team, that's the main breadwinner and ultimately the more money that team brings in, the more money there will be for the club as a whole, ergo the woman's team.
Shouldn't be controversial to say that.
Also, for the last poster who stated that United didn't spend anything in January, they actually did, albeit only on one transfer, but after the outlay from the summer not much was really required.
I won't resort to name calling, as there is an obvious difference of opinion here, which is no one's fault - we're all different and that keeps life interesting.I always find it interesting that those who bang loudest about the rights of some are the quickest to diminish others.
Tesco checkout workers earn their company money. The company depends on them. Is this the bit where I call you a plum in return?
Against my better judgement, I have to pick you up on this.
I presume you like football, specifically Manchester United? And that football is a sport? So what you are really saying is that women's football is not a sport?
Of course you are free to air your own views.
I won't resort to name calling, as there is an obvious difference of opinion here, which is no one's fault - we're all different and that keeps life interesting.
That being said, I do feel you've missed the point a little. To use your Tesco analogy, the CEO visits stores from time to time and sure, they might not know the name of young Joe Bloggs on checkouts. But they should know the name of the store manager they are there to meet shouldn't they? That's the equivalency being discussed here. Tesco is also much, much, much bigger than United! There's, what, five or six captains in the entire club? Men, women and some youth. Not too much to ask, even if they don't particularly care that much?
I get that, I do. I've been a United fan since the early 90s (born late 80s, I got very lucky with our success!) I didn't know a women's team existed until it was disbanded by the Glazers in 2005. To be completely honest, I first attended women's games because it was affordable and accessible, which Old Trafford and the men largely isn't. So my United history is very much men's team, Class of '92, Oooh Aah Cantona, '99 and everything since.No not saying that at all. Of course it's a sport, I've just no interest in it. Like I haven't lots of other sports. I want the club to concentrate 100% on the men's team. That's what I've followed since I was a kid. What I care about.
I get that, I do. I've been a United fan since the early 90s (born late 80s, I got very lucky with our success!) I didn't know a women's team existed until it was disbanded by the Glazers in 2005. To be completely honest, I first attended women's games because it was affordable and accessible, which Old Trafford and the men largely isn't. So my United history is very much men's team, Class of '92, Oooh Aah Cantona, '99 and everything since.
But of interest though, do you have any interest in the academy teams? The youth is just as, if not more, important as the men's given the financial state of the club, not to mention our own history with (to borrow a phrase) youth, courage and success.
One of the amazing things about our women's team is that those traditions that date back to Busby and beyond are honoured there too, with academy graduates Ella Toone, Millie Turner, Gabby George and until last summer Katie Zelem playing key roles for us. Just a few weeks ago we had a 17 year old Maired Griffiths come on as a sub for her debut and score two goals. If that's not pure Manchester United I don't know what is.
I'm not trying to convince you to watch or pay an interest to the women's team, there's only so much time in the day after all and let's face it - the games often clash (thanks Sky et. al.) but the women's team should be acknowledged as being as much a Man United team as any other. Particularly by those in charge of the club!
Yeah I watch the U21's and U18's when I can. Have done for years.
But you can't force an interest. Sport after all is a spectator sport, we watch it for enjoyment and get to choose what we enjoy. That's the point of it. It's a hobby. There isn't an obligation and sometimes I feel women's football is veering that way. Almost a societal pressure to watch and enjoy it.
I don’t know too much about how it all works but as far as I'm aware the club does support the women's team. The whole thing is ultimately subsidised and will be for decades to come.
I don’t think this needs to be another hammer to batter the club and Ratcliffe with. Plenty of other more valid hammers to use.
How does that manifest itself in real life?
But it is just that, it's a hammer to batter the club with and it doesn't need to be. Unlike most of the hammers this isn't about saving money, financial regulations or improving performance in the men's team.I don’t think this needs to be another hammer to batter the club and Ratcliffe with. Plenty of other more valid hammers to use.
Because National League players are not, by definition, the best players in their sport. The WSL is the top division, the players play at world cups. Unless you don't want women's sport of any kind to be talked about because men tend to be better at it, I'm not sure what your point is.The disproportionate amount of coverage relative to how popular it actually is. Similar or lower attendance figures to the National League even though tickets are half the price. But when I open the Sky Sports App I don't see National League news front and centre. Nor do I see National League players working as pundits.
Equally take a look here at some of the bristling responses to somebody saying they're not interested. If I said I wasn't interested in cricket or men's netball nobody would be one bit bothered.
It's clearly being pushed beyond its actual popularity and I get that. Some things need a leg up. But the club and Ratcliffe don't need a battering for their efforts. Some here deciding it says everything about Ratcliffes character. Ridiculous stuff.
The disproportionate amount of coverage relative to how popular it actually is. Similar or lower attendance figures to the National League even though tickets are half the price. But when I open the Sky Sports App I don't see National League news front and centre. Nor do I see National League players working as pundits.
Equally take a look here at some of the bristling responses to somebody saying they're not interested. If I said I wasn't interested in cricket or men's netball nobody would be one bit bothered.
It's clearly being pushed beyond its actual popularity and I get that. Some things need a leg up. But the club and Ratcliffe don't need a battering for their efforts. Some here deciding it says everything about Ratcliffes character. Ridiculous stuff.
I think you're forgetting that Sky are a business. Women's football is cheap and as well as being watched by some fans of men's football, it attracts a new audience. It's a cheap way to broaden the viewer base for adverts. According to Sky's market research it helps them retain customers - though like tennis and the darts etc it doesn't get them new ones on its own.The disproportionate amount of coverage relative to how popular it actually is. Similar or lower attendance figures to the National League even though tickets are half the price. But when I open the Sky Sports App I don't see National League news front and centre. Nor do I see National League players working as pundits.
Equally take a look here at some of the bristling responses to somebody saying they're not interested. If I said I wasn't interested in cricket or men's netball nobody would be one bit bothered.
It's clearly being pushed beyond its actual popularity and I get that. Some things need a leg up. But the club and Ratcliffe don't need a battering for their efforts. Some here deciding it says everything about Ratcliffes character. Ridiculous stuff.
I totally agree with you here. Calling the women "ladies" was innocuous but perhaps misguided or ill-judged. The players themselves call the others girls in interviews. And then there's the Doncaster Belles in Division 1.I don’t think this needs to be another hammer to batter the club and Ratcliffe with. Plenty of other more valid hammers to use.
Well then why don’t you go into the caf’s cricket or netball thread and tell everyone that you’re not interested in those sports? Maybe it’s just me, but it seems weird that you’d come into a thread on United Women just to say that you’re not interested in women’s football.Equally take a look here at some of the bristling responses to somebody saying they're not interested. If I said I wasn't interested in cricket or men's netball nobody would be one bit bothered.
Exactly. People in here aren't 'bristling' that Marwood on the Caf doesn't care about women's football They're responding as they have done because the poster has come in here specifically to state that they don't care about Women's football, that we're all over-sensitive in feeling the opposite way, and that his personal feelings mean it's fine that the owners of the club can go around making it clear they feel the same way.Well then why don’t you go into the caf’s cricket or netball thread and tell everyone that you’re not interested in those sports? Maybe it’s just me, but it seems weird that you’d come into a thread on United Women just to say that you’re not interested in women’s football.
I admit, I even smiled when he said that, "I did ask Maya if she was related" to that other Le Tissier, because everybody asks that...He managed to remember one of our players' names.
He managed to remember one of our players' names.
My eyebrow began to raise when he started talking about "smaller issues" but fair play, pulled it around in the end.From Radcliffe's interview with the BBC yesterday, his comments on the women's team.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgwkg880j8o
There were a couple more questions on the women's team as well about Katie Zelem, MLT and the WFA cup final.
A chance to clear a few things up… when it comes to the women's team it has been suggested you don't care as much about that team as the men's team. How would you describe the situation from your perspective?
It's a bit unfair. What I said at the beginning was my main focus is on the men's team because that, at the end of the day, is what moves the needle at Manchester United. The women's team is much smaller than the men's team. Of our £650m of income, £640m of that comes from the men's team and £10m comes from the women's team.
With my business background you tend to focus on the bigger issues before you focus on the smaller issues. But the women's team wear the Manchester United brand, the Manchester United logo, so in that sense they are every bit as important as the men's team. And frankly, they are doing better than the men's team - they are second in the league and won the FA Cup last season. [Head coach] Marc Skinner is doing a great job as the coach and the new captain Maya [le Tissier] is doing a great job.
Personally, I think that's progress. Not inspiring perhaps, but a step up on last time he spoke about the team. If only because last time out he talked about the men's team earning £800m and the women costing £10m.
This time he's actually talking about the revenue difference - which is a much more accurate way to describe it. I'd like it if one day one of top brass talks about the women's team as an opportunity for growth. I'd like it even more to hear that "someone" in the senior management structure has the women's team as a day to day priority, even if it's not a personal priority of SJR.
My eyebrow began to raise when he started talking about "smaller issues" but fair play, pulled it around in the end.
Sad that it looks like the OT for the women idea isn't gonna happen but I guess that was always a long shot.
It's the hope that kills you!Omar Berrada and Collette Roche did a Q&A yesterday as part of the stadium launch. There's a transcript at:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/every-word-omar-berrada-collette-31178835
It included a few queries around the women's team and the new stadium.
What is the plan for current stadium?
OB: "We haven't made a decision on it yet. It's true that at some point there was some thinking either keeping it as it is or reducing the capacity to 25 or 30,000 as somewhere where the women's team could play, the youth teams could play. I think given our ambition to build what you saw today, maybe that needs to be re-visited.
"Again, our ambition is for the women's team to have a big enough fan base that they're playing in the main stadium, not in a smaller capacity stadium."
Q: So it's still an option the current stadium could stay there?
OB: "I'd say it's unlikely."
Q: Is it feasible to have mini Old Trafford like CFA (City Football Academy)?
OB: "It's not off the table. It's feasible but we have to find the best ways to finance a new stadium and, to Collette's point, we're thinking about this in the context of how can it benefit the wider regeneration project. If we feel the space where Old Trafford currently is can be used in a different way whilst preserving the history of Old Trafford then we'll explore it."
Q: How do you bring the women's team in? Currently at Leigh?
CR: "When we've looked at the designs, the great thing about having that type of stadium is that it can be creative for different venues. If you had a concert you wouldn't necessarily be filling the higher sides of the goal. There's technology now that can still give you the sense of a smaller, intimidating, great atmospheric stadium which we think could be befitting the women's team with a smaller crowd.
"That's the type of things we're looking at. As well as technology for the pitch. The pitch needs to be in mint condition for the men's team and the women's team. We're looking at technology that will allow us to use it for the men's team and the women's team."
I admit, I find this idea of the big stadium as a regular home for the women's team intriguing. I know there's a lot we can do with stadium lighting to reconfigure the ground to look ok with a smaller crowd. I've no idea about the acoustic solutions though - hard to imagine, but maybe it's true!
The fact that they're referencing events with 25k+ crowd sizes gives me hope.
Yep. The question applies to the whole of the women's game really.The unknown is obviously where MU Women will be in 5 years time in terms of attendances
The May derby at OT will hopefully be well attended
