Wow a thread on Alan Brazil that contains two of my room 101's. Women's football and dogs. Can we get tattoos, selfie sticks and onesies in I wonder?
I didn't expect you to have a couple of my 101 list. Tattoos on skin is gross, and tattoos of roses on the younger female breasts may look fine but what about in later years when the flowers wilt ! A Welsh friend of mine had the 58 letters of his birth place tattooed on his John Thomas; he said it was only when he had a fling with a barmaid did he see the full name. I said don't send a dick pic, a picture of your local train station will be more to my liking being a CAFC fan !
Dogs especially German Shepherds don't like me, they must smell my fear.
Selfie stick and onesie (I have a halfie down to my shin and great indoors in the winter) not bad shouts.
Disagree about Women's football but it may be getting over hyped now after 50 odd years of being banned when the Preston ladies attracted too big a crowd in the 1920's and taking time to be a successful pro sport over the last 20 years in England. BUT no room for Misogynistic views and great that girls/women can choose what sport they play and the elite women can now make a good living for the decade or so at football and cricket now and in the coming years.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Wow a thread on Alan Brazil that contains two of my room 101's. Women's football and dogs. Can we get tattoos, selfie sticks and onesies in I wonder?
I didn't expect you to have a couple of my 101 list. Tattoos on skin is gross, and tattoos of roses on the younger female breasts may look fine but what about in later years when the flowers wilt ! A Welsh friend of mine had the 58 letters of his birth place tattooed on his John Thomas; he said it was only when he had a fling with a barmaid did he see the full name. I said don't send a dick pic, a picture of your local train station will be more to my liking being a CAFC fan !
Dogs especially German Shepherds don't like me, they must smell my fear.
Selfie stick and onesie (I have a halfie down to my shin and great indoors in the winter) not bad shouts.
Disagree about Women's football but it may be getting over hyped now after 50 odd years of being banned when the Preston ladies attracted too big a crowd in the 1920's and taking time to be a successful pro sport over the last 20 years in England. BUT no room for Misogynistic views and great that girls/women can choose what sport they play and the elite women can now make a good living for the decade or so at football and cricket now and in the coming years.
Pretty sure people who have tattoos don't particularly give a tinker's cuss what you think they look like buddy.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Cheers Partridge
“Idea for a programme, Feeling Fruity with Alan Partridge. I stand at an Italian Marble kitchen worktop, casually dressed in Levi’s and a Regata Jacket, and try to guess and peel various fruits blindfolded whilst wearing professional driving gloves”
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Cheers Partridge
“Idea for a programme, Feeling Fruity with Alan Partridge. I stand at an Italian Marble kitchen worktop, casually dressed in Levi’s and a Regata Jacket, and try to guess and peel various fruits blindfolded whilst wearing professional driving gloves”
It must not, quote must not turn in to an all night rave
Wow a thread on Alan Brazil that contains two of my room 101's. Women's football and dogs. Can we get tattoos, selfie sticks and onesies in I wonder?
I didn't expect you to have a couple of my 101 list. Tattoos on skin is gross, and tattoos of roses on the younger female breasts may look fine but what about in later years when the flowers wilt ! A Welsh friend of mine had the 58 letters of his birth place tattooed on his John Thomas; he said it was only when he had a fling with a barmaid did he see the full name. I said don't send a dick pic, a picture of your local train station will be more to my liking being a CAFC fan !
Dogs especially German Shepherds don't like me, they must smell my fear.
Selfie stick and onesie (I have a halfie down to my shin and great indoors in the winter) not bad shouts.
Disagree about Women's football but it may be getting over hyped now after 50 odd years of being banned when the Preston ladies attracted too big a crowd in the 1920's and taking time to be a successful pro sport over the last 20 years in England. BUT no room for Misogynistic views and great that girls/women can choose what sport they play and the elite women can now make a good living for the decade or so at football and cricket now and in the coming years.
Pretty sure people who have tattoos don't particularly give a tinker's cuss what you think they look like buddy.
Room 101 is for personal things we don't like as I'm sure you are aware 🤔
Most of the world don't give a flying fuck what you or I think about anything.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Tell me you didn't watch the clip without telling me just make stuff up
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Was going to tear this argument apart but to be honest, I feel it would be a waste of my time and intelligence. If you want take another go try to make it legitimate (also stop using words like "plateaux" if you can't spell plateau) then i'll skim read and it see if it motivates me as enough of a challenge to deign to grace you with a response.
"Brazil and co" were talking about Project 150, the planning strategy to enable Manchester United to be champions of both the Premier League and the WSL in 2028, the 150th anniversary of the club.
Project 150 comprises two distinct missions.
"Mission 21" focuses on reclaiming the Premier League title. The club has been integrating expertise from various fields, including renowned athletics coach Harry Marra, to enhance team performance. Mission 21 refers to the fact that Manchester United have won "the title" (Premier League/Football League) twenty times so far.
"Mission 1" is the strategic goal to win the WSL for the first time in the club's history.
Mission 21 relies on Sir Dave Brailsford to implement his unique experience in incremental improvements in process and performance, and James Morton, a professor of exercise metabolism at Liverpool John Moores University. Morton and Brailsford will collaborate to implement advanced nutritional and performance strategies he developed and utilised at Team Sky during their TdF victories and at Liverpool FC.
Mission 1 is under the direction of Marc Skinner, the head coach of Manchester United Women. Skinner is pivotal in leading the team toward WSL success and emphasises the importance of continuous investment and developing a young, dynamic squad.
Project 150 itself is the brainchild of entrepreneur, billionaire, sports investor and INEOS owner Jim Ratcliffe . Ratcliffe owns INEOS Grenadiers (formerly Team Sky) and has won the TdF with them. He owns INEOS Britannia, which triumphed in the 2024 Louis Vuitton Cup Challenger Series. He's a principal partner of Mercedes F1, who have won the World Drivers Championship, the Constructors' Title and several GP since 2020. His business ventures have earned him an estimated wealth of between $13 and $18bn.
If he thinks it's a good idea to target both the Premier League AND the WSL, by combining the talents and experience of some of the most-experienced, successful sports administrators and scientists, within a given timeframe, who is Alan Brazil to argue with him?
And, in the same way that an company's ESG policies don't specifically sway their consumers' decisions (who switches toothpaste brands or baked beans solely because the company plants some trees?) but investors see the huge benefits in shareholder value when there is a joined-up ESG and/or DEI policy, then isn't he right to support, shape and magnify both the adult teams' aspirations?
Project 150 can't be delivered by the men's team alone. That's what Alan Brazil was missing.
But, at the same time, furious snowflakes up in arms about women's football was what Alan Brazil was accurately hitting.
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Tell me you didn't watch the clip without telling me just make stuff up
No I have not seen or heard it - I went off of my question and the response I received at the time
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Tell me you didn't watch the clip without telling me just make stuff up
Tell me you're using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man by actually using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man.
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Tell me you didn't watch the clip without telling me just make stuff up
Tell me you're using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man by actually using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man.
Perhaps but i don't think it is ergo it probably isn't. Also look at his response and one will see one was proven right, needless to say I have had the last laugh in this exchange.
if you are reading a thread talking about who can fill in on left side of a back 3 for our men's team, and someone started spouting on about how well the Charlton women's team are doing with a 2 CB partnership, they would rightly be called out as to what the actual fuck that has to do with the conversation in hand.
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Tell me you didn't watch the clip without telling me just make stuff up
Tell me you're using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man by actually using the most annoying rhetorical device known to man.
Perhaps but i don't think it is ergo it probably isn't. Also look at his response and one will see one was proven right, needless to say I have had the last laugh in this exchange.
You're wasted on this forum!
Strange how people get weird about women's football, no one is forcing you to watch it. As they used to say in Rome, cognoscens me aha cognoscens te.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Was going to tear this argument apart but to be honest, I feel it would be a waste of my time and intelligence. If you want take another go try to make it legitimate (also stop using words like "plateaux" if you can't spell plateau) then i'll skim read and it see if it motivates me as enough of a challenge to deign to grace you with a response.
Legitimate ? Anyway, - plateau - let’s see what u got
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Was going to tear this argument apart but to be honest, I feel it would be a waste of my time and intelligence. If you want take another go try to make it legitimate (also stop using words like "plateaux" if you can't spell plateau) then i'll skim read and it see if it motivates me as enough of a challenge to deign to grace you with a response.
Legitimate ? Anyway, - plateau - let’s see what u got
Don't have to mate your comments have a grand total of 2 likes and 1 lol, where as my comments have a total of 4 likes and 8 lols. Needless to say, I've had the last laugh.
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Was going to tear this argument apart but to be honest, I feel it would be a waste of my time and intelligence. If you want take another go try to make it legitimate (also stop using words like "plateaux" if you can't spell plateau) then i'll skim read and it see if it motivates me as enough of a challenge to deign to grace you with a response.
Legitimate ? Anyway, - plateau - let’s see what u got
Don't have to mate your comments have a grand total of 2 likes and 1 lol, where as my comments have a total of 4 likes and 8 lols. Needless to say, I've had the last laugh.
I am not taking sides old chap but someone of your undoubted intelligence does not need to be so childish
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Putting your dress sense to one side for a minute and just focusing on one of your key points:
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago. It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Was going to tear this argument apart but to be honest, I feel it would be a waste of my time and intelligence. If you want take another go try to make it legitimate (also stop using words like "plateaux" if you can't spell plateau) then i'll skim read and it see if it motivates me as enough of a challenge to deign to grace you with a response.
Legitimate ? Anyway, - plateau - let’s see what u got
Don't have to mate your comments have a grand total of 2 likes and 1 lol, where as my comments have a total of 4 likes and 8 lols. Needless to say, I've had the last laugh.
That’s a shame - u do agree with me though don’t u?
Everyone here is clearly waiting with baited breath for my take on the Alan Brazil issue, which no doubt will be more eloquent, intelligent and nuanced than everyone else's here. So i will deliver it.
Alan Brazil is more than likely right in the sentiment that most Man U fans and general fans don't greatly care about the women's team, this is quantifiability true by looking at viewing figures, attendances, social media interactions etc, etc.
However, what he doesn't seem to understand is that the point of putting them together isn't to say the WSL is as important to the club as the Premier League but that by putting them together and treating them as high level objectives it can help to grow the women's game which will be beneficial to the women's game and the club. The fact of the matter is the Women's game has suffered because of the success of the Men's game, now i know some knuckle draggers will say "BuT WhY Do NT WoMEN wAtch IT SImPLEs" or "iT's JuST Not AS GooD aS ThE MenS GaME ENd oF!!!!", and of course if you have an IQ in the double digits that would appear to be true but you do have to dig a little deeper -
1) women haven't been watching it because it hasn't been publicised as much in the last 20 years and beyond so you wont change that overnight.
2) It isn't as good as men's football and part of the reason is the lack of funds its received. Isn't it strange how Men's football has got a lot better over the last 30 years since the inception of the Premier league and global money. Perhaps more Women (and Men) would watch it if it got better but to better it needs more money.
Now back to Alan Brazil as said he is right on face value but the point of giving the women's game air time to be spoken about is to increase its value, would talking about it for 5 mins really be that much of a chore ? It just seems a very snowflakey thing to get upset about and make a big deal over someone talking about the women's game.
Why talk about it for 5 minutes if its not seen as relevant to the conversation they are having, which as your post rightly indicates - is about the perception of Manchester United as a club and how their fortunes are usually seen through the prism of the mens team?
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Set the scene - I read your comments, standing at my marble breakfast island in the kitchen, wearing a fashionable pair of loafers, some washed blue bootcut levi's, my regatta professional driving jacket matched with stone black driving gloves. I get to the end of your reply and a knowing wry smile spreads across my face as i shake my head and let out a small chuckle. Clearly I am going to have the last laugh as you haven't understood my points.
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Regardless of what project was being discussed, the point he was making was about the fans' overall perception of the club.
I've never said the women's game wasn't deserving of being spoken about in order to grow the game. Just that there's no need to shoehorn it in out of context unnecessarily.
Just like you didn't need to shoehorn in your description of an insufferable sounding Nigel stood in his kitchen eating breakfast, but there you go.
Comments
I didn't expect you to have a couple of my 101 list.
Tattoos on skin is gross, and tattoos of roses on the younger female breasts may look fine but what about in later years when the flowers wilt !
A Welsh friend of mine had the 58 letters of his birth place tattooed on his John Thomas; he said it was only when he had a fling with a barmaid did he see the full name. I said don't send a dick pic, a picture of your local train station will be more to my liking being a CAFC fan !
Dogs especially German Shepherds don't like me, they must smell my fear.
Selfie stick and onesie (I have a halfie down to my shin and great indoors in the winter) not bad shouts.
Disagree about Women's football but it may be getting over hyped now after 50 odd years of being banned when the Preston ladies attracted too big a crowd in the 1920's and taking time to be a successful pro sport over the last 20 years in England. BUT no room for Misogynistic views and great that girls/women can choose what sport they play and the elite women can now make a good living for the decade or so at football and cricket now and in the coming years.
If it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then it doesn't need to be shoehorned in.
I enjoy watching the women's game from time to time. Have been to a few Charlton matches and will watch the Lionesses when major tournaments come around. But I actually feel it hurts the women's game when it is talked about in the exact same context of the men's game. If the product is compelling enough then it will reach the level naturally where it can be part of the conversation around the success/failures of major Premier League clubs. But at the moment, it is a drop in the ocean to the overall picture at a club like Man United. Why pretend otherwise?
Anyway onto dismantling your opinion - Why talk about it for 5 mins ? To help grow the game, you understand that exposure is what will help grow the game, again I ask why do you think men's football has grown even larger than it was with the advent of the Premier League ? because the standard of football got better due to the exposure which equaled more money. As for the product being compelling you have to make the product compelling ? watch football from 50 years ago it was largely crap and if it was played to day compared to any of the EFL people probably wouldn't watch it.
Its not relevant to the discussion at hand ? How Manchester United have literally included the Women's team in the project that was being discussed, how is it anything else but relevant ?
Yes there will be a few snowflakes who get upset and cry when women's football is spoken about which could rile them to say more offensive things but what ? Should we never have discussed any kind of inequality because some people were against it ? Equally you could argue young girls may hear about the women's game on TV, Radio etc and decide they want to take up football, which anyone with any education (providing your education wasn't free/non-grammar) will know is beneficial to the elite level as it creates more grassroots players to go into the pipeline.
Room 101 is for personal things we don't like as I'm sure you are aware 🤔
Most of the world don't give a flying fuck what you or I think about anything.
On your bike.
I'd argue the men's game was a better spectacle and more enjoyable watch 50 years ago.
It was picked up and broadcast worldwide by the new technology because it was so compelling, with English football the most popular and arguably the least like it is today.
Yes, more money can now be spent on pitches, stadiums and go into players bank accounts but is it really more entertaining / compelling? Most games are strangled by tactics, 'game management', fake injuries, players being rested for games like the fa cup being deemed beneath them, players picking the safe pass all the time, spending half the game 'defending with the ball' (going backwards), game constantly being stopped as players go down with the slightest touch, and generally looking a lot more like the foreign football than the English version of the game which was so popular. Players are quicker and fitter (although out injured a lot more) now but not necessarily better footballers / capable of producing a more entertaining match.
No, throwing money and exposure at football will not make it more interesting, in fact i'd say the reverse is true and i predict we will see a plateaux in interest in women's football.
The good thing is that women's football is not now viewed as something as an odd choice for a young girl but is now mainstream which is great but shoehorning women into men's football at every point has gone too far now. We had a foreign woman who could hardly speak English interviewing Plymouth's centre half on the pitch the other day and the co commentator for last nights game at Doncaster was dressed like princess Anne. God knows who she was
Brazil and co were talking about the men's team, so no need for the women's team to be brought up.
Project 150 comprises two distinct missions.
"Mission 21" focuses on reclaiming the Premier League title. The club has been integrating expertise from various fields, including renowned athletics coach Harry Marra, to enhance team performance. Mission 21 refers to the fact that Manchester United have won "the title" (Premier League/Football League) twenty times so far.
"Mission 1" is the strategic goal to win the WSL for the first time in the club's history.
Mission 21 relies on Sir Dave Brailsford to implement his unique experience in incremental improvements in process and performance, and James Morton, a professor of exercise metabolism at Liverpool John Moores University. Morton and Brailsford will collaborate to implement advanced nutritional and performance strategies he developed and utilised at Team Sky during their TdF victories and at Liverpool FC.
Mission 1 is under the direction of Marc Skinner, the head coach of Manchester United Women. Skinner is pivotal in leading the team toward WSL success and emphasises the importance of continuous investment and developing a young, dynamic squad.
Project 150 itself is the brainchild of entrepreneur, billionaire, sports investor and INEOS owner Jim Ratcliffe . Ratcliffe owns INEOS Grenadiers (formerly Team Sky) and has won the TdF with them. He owns INEOS Britannia, which triumphed in the 2024 Louis Vuitton Cup Challenger Series. He's a principal partner of Mercedes F1, who have won the World Drivers Championship, the Constructors' Title and several GP since 2020. His business ventures have earned him an estimated wealth of between $13 and $18bn.
If he thinks it's a good idea to target both the Premier League AND the WSL, by combining the talents and experience of some of the most-experienced, successful sports administrators and scientists, within a given timeframe, who is Alan Brazil to argue with him?
And, in the same way that an company's ESG policies don't specifically sway their consumers' decisions (who switches toothpaste brands or baked beans solely because the company plants some trees?) but investors see the huge benefits in shareholder value when there is a joined-up ESG and/or DEI policy, then isn't he right to support, shape and magnify both the adult teams' aspirations?
Project 150 can't be delivered by the men's team alone. That's what Alan Brazil was missing.
But, at the same time, furious snowflakes up in arms about women's football was what Alan Brazil was accurately hitting.
No I have not seen or heard it - I went off of my question and the response I received at the time
Strange how people get weird about women's football, no one is forcing you to watch it. As they used to say in Rome, cognoscens me aha cognoscens te.
Regardless of what project was being discussed, the point he was making was about the fans' overall perception of the club.
I've never said the women's game wasn't deserving of being spoken about in order to grow the game. Just that there's no need to shoehorn it in out of context unnecessarily.
Just like you didn't need to shoehorn in your description of an insufferable sounding Nigel stood in his kitchen eating breakfast, but there you go.