Mary Earps | signs for PSG
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
Right… and you’re going to attract players to the club with that policy are you.
I would say Chelsea's women's team is more successful than their men at the moment as are Barcelona. Why can't they make sure both men and womens teams are successful.
It’s difficult to grow it with the decisions the owners are making.
Bring in Wyatt to replace her.
How much money do Arsenal women's team generate? Surely having more games at OT would help.
I don’t know, but as far as I know we generate more revenue than any other women’s team in Europe after Barcelona.
Then my advice would be invest that money properly in the team.
We probably will. Not to compete with our rivals on wages to keep our best players but to make a couple of panic buys on the deadline day. Then again the top players don't want to join a club that doesn't take the women's team seriously. Not 100% sure they are craving to get to the portacabins before training when they can use world class facilities elsewhere.
Honestly I don't think much of it is particularly in any individual clubs control. It needs exponential growth in women's football more generally and a decent TV rights package which will hopefully also bring in sponsors for more £££. They're not far off being able to sell out Leigh most games but Old Trafford is a huge jump and I can't imagine the staffing costs and everything else makes much mathematical sense pulling in 15K-20K, unless you only do 1 stand initially, maybe SAF or South. So I genuinely don't know where they make home next.
And when we keep losing our best players for free how do you think we will get more people to the stands? And more sponsors?
As I said I don't think it actually matters that much, Chelsea women brought in £8.8m last year so circa 20% more but in the scheme of things peanuts, the difference doesn't make the investment to get there make sense currently. It needs the entire women's game to generate more money and that requires people to watch and turn up.
SJR’s comments were disappointing. A little bit of tact and preparedness would have gone a long way. It’s not like he was asked about some random team the club sponsors in some far flung location.
A simple comment on their intent, and a wholistic vision for football operations that includes growing the women’s game would have gone down better.
Especially when you’re pitching a “Wembley of the north” that attracts a diverse crowd.
A simple comment on their intent, and a wholistic vision for football operations that includes growing the women’s game would have gone down better.
Especially when you’re pitching a “Wembley of the north” that attracts a diverse crowd.
It costs them over £300k to host those games at the Emirates, not too sure who swallows that bill though (the club or the Ladies). They charge £12 and £6 for tickets, so I'd guess from ticket sales if they pay to host it there they would be making £150k+ on a 60,000 sell out and then you would have other match day income on top.
Chelsea's Women's team didn't issue tickets over a certain amount for a match at Stamford Bridge last season as they didn't want it classed as a big event. Although my niece went to their match against Barcelona and it was used as a big event, so was packed.
In terms of the "commercial revenue" and us, I still believe the club trickles down that money from the Sponsorships the club has in general and not exclusive to the Women's team. So that would I imagine mean it could fluctuate with the Men's teams failure to get Champions League and how much is allocated.
I don't get where you're going with this, nobody's asking for investment/attention comparable to the men's team... Just something comparable to the other successful women's teams so our players stick around?
So the women suffer financially because the men were seriously c**p.
From what I remember reading, when the new Adidas deal kicks in it includes a bonus for both the Men's and Women's team if they win their respective leagues. But also a deduction if we miss out on the Champions League every season rather than over two year like the current deal.
From what I remember reading, when the new Adidas deal kicks in it includes a bonus for both the Men's and Women's team if they win their respective leagues. But also a deduction if we miss out on the Champions League every season rather than over two year like the current deal.
Anyway, back to Mary Earps. Done deal.
Last edited:
Good riddance.
Good for her. Get out of this shit show.
I don't think Ratcliffe cares, he sees that there is currently no financial benefit to the investment but perhaps I'll get proved wrong. If you're very successful in the WPL or in Europe currently it moves the financial needle by less than the investment that would be required to achieve it and maintain it. And so through his self-made billionaire lens ain't going to be the type of thing he generally puts effort into.
Which is arguably quite short sighted considering the sport seems to be growing strongly and as a fan is frustrating. But I guess it will be interesting to see the extent of the business we do this summer.
I’ll obviously be sad to see Mary go, but all things considered I’m quite happy she’s joining PSG and not Arsenal for example. And we already have her replacement in PTJ who from what I’ve seen is a very good keeper herself so I’m actually excited to see what she can do as the first choice keeper next season.
Yeah, for me it's not this in isolation, just a thing things here and there have made me lose what little confidence I had in Ineos for the short term. Hopefully the people that come in bring the much needed expertise....
Yes! How dare she have ambitions for the team.
What an unbelievably stupid comment.
Not really when you think about it.
It’s quite funny to see the extent people are bending over backwards to defend every little thing that Jim says or does. Like I get it, he’s not a glazer orc, and a lot of people got really invested on his side in the Jim Vs Jassim battle, but that’s really no reason to just blindly support whatever he says or does and try to explain it away as something good.
I've noticed this too.... Very reminiscent of the honeymoon phase for past managers...
Yes, really.
Why?
The idea that a player who has ambition is a snake for not signing when the club has shown no sign of trying to improve, is stupid.
The idea that United made her is also stupid.
We just won the cup.
We made both players into starts and they have thanked us by leaving on frees while blaming the club for lacking direction or whatever.
Russo did the same last year when we almost won the league and lost the cup final.
I'd have more respect for them if they just said they're leaving for the money.
You’d have to be spectacularly myopic to think Mary Earps has been made a star from her United career rather than what she’s done with England.
Also, you should have more respect for them than to assume it’s about money when the club is being run disastrously and Jimbo has just told us all it’s not getting better for the women’s team any time soon.
Why they hell would she want to stay with the state of things?
I was staunchly in favour of Jim, and would still stand by that decision now vs the alternative. But he's coming across a bit of a wally so far and I'm not impressed by practically everything they've done and how they've gone about it. I didn't want us to be a sports washing facility though, so I'm just ready to embrace more years of what looks to be a bit of a clown show.
You do realise that Earps plays for England through club form right?
Sir Jim said he would get to the laides team next, he was telling it like it is.
You really don’t see the common denominator when six key players have left the club inside one year? Hmm, perhaps there’s something wrong with how the club operates.
And why exactly should our star players in their prime stick around on low wages waiting for that day the owners actually start looking into the women’s team? When they can go and fight for the Champions League elsewhere.