Putting money in the women's game (was: Wigan Warriors: Bankrupt)

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Shouldn't that be case for all variables of our game. If you can't or won't invest in your own sports don't expect others too invest. 

Of course, I called out the women's game explicitly simply because that's what the threads about. 

But yeah, we can't just do something and money will come. That also doesn't mean that money is guaranteed, so we need to choose carefully where our efforts go. 

It feels to me that women's RL is a good opportunity to create something really positive and sustainable at least. 

[Chrispmartha]

Deary me

 

 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Deary me

 

 

All. The. Time.

Respond and you're missing the joke.

Don't respond and they've won.

[RigbyLuger]

Report and block, but there were similar posts here yesterday too 

 

Hopefully Cas can ban him as well.

[Midlands hobo]

Perhaps he can provide medical records that he has passed an iq test

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, Spidey said:

It’s not a gotcha, just responding to nonsense with nonsense. As for Womens rugby It’s absolutely the right thing to do for Rugby League as a sport to survive, and reach new audiences. The exposure from this World Cup should be a catalyst. There is a cost to run any elite club, and to qualify as elite they have a duty to all forms of the sport. If they can’t do this they shouldn’t be an elite club

No , there is no responsibility to run any teams , it is a choice , if any club wants to just run a men's first team then that is their perogative 

[Midlands hobo]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Right so you were agreeing with what people, included I, originally put. I´m starting to think that I was right to say you can´t or couldn´t be bothered to read. 

*YAWN*

[Tommygilf]

45 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

No , there is no responsibility to run any teams , it is a choice , if any club wants to just run a men's first team then that is their perogative 

It absolutely is, just as it is their prerogative to basically do, or not do, anything as a club.

They can, and will, be judged on those decisions though.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It absolutely is, just as it is their prerogative to basically do, or not do, anything as a club.

They can, and will, be judged on those decisions though.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree 

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Then we'll have to agree to disagree 

You don't think clubs should be judged on decisions they make?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

You don't think clubs should be judged on decisions they make?

I think businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions on what business they want to be active in , if that is purely male RL , then that should be fine 

 

[Spidey]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

No , there is no responsibility to run any teams , it is a choice , if any club wants to just run a men's first team then that is their perogative 

Yes of course, but the result may be getting a C rating and no place in SL in the near future. Which is fine of course if that’s what they want to do

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Spidey said:

Yes of course, but the result may be getting a C rating and no place in SL in the near future. Which is fine of course if that’s what they want to do

Which in truth is completely ridiculous , so they are forcing clubs to run loss making teams ? 

[Damien]

Putting money into the women's game = Play standalone internationals and don't play double headers as a warmup to the men.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Putting money into the women's game = Play standalone internationals and don't play double headers as a warmup to the men.

Depends what the cost is ? 

 

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I think businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions on what business they want to be active in , if that is purely male RL , then that should be fine 

If your business operates in a particular market you are constrained by that market. Some are just pure market forces, some have human intervention, some have legal restrictions, some have specific set rules that define how you can operate.

For example, Super League currently has limits on how much you can pay a squad of players, restrictions on which players you can recruit, it also has a (pitifully low) minimum wage. All are entirely arbitrary restrictions on running a mens rugby league team. 

Super League is going to introduce a grading system for clubs, and it can include whatever it wants in that grading. It isn't inconceivable at all that if its a choice between 2 fairly even mens clubs for the final spot, 1 that runs a successful and well backed women's team and 1 that doesn't run a womens team at all, the former will be the preferred option.

Going forward, the importance of Womens and Wheelchair RL, as well as support for other forms of the game through community foundations, will only increase. Much like in the Mens game however, clubs in areas within the reach of successful clubs in these fields will feel more benefits from the over flow.

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Damien said:

Putting money into the women's game = Play standalone internationals and don't play double headers as a warmup to the men.

Absolutely. 

This world cup has confirmed it to me. I was a bit sceptical before, but 100% now we need to back Women's RL as it deserves.

[whatmichaelsays]

I'm minded to agree with the notion that clubs shouldn't be required to run women's teams if they choose not to, but not because of the commercial argument. I don't want clubs running half-assed women's operations just because they've been mandated to, or because it ticks a box. The players deserve better than that. There are good examples in football (Leeds United being a good example) of what happens when clubs see women's teams as an afterthought or, dare I say it, a nuisance. 

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be part of grading criteria going forward - but if clubs don't want to run one (and/or run it properly), at least they're clear on the potential opportunity cost. 

[GUBRATS]

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If your business operates in a particular market you are constrained by that market. Some are just pure market forces, some have human intervention, some have legal restrictions, some have specific set rules that define how you can operate.

For example, Super League currently has limits on how much you can pay a squad of players, restrictions on which players you can recruit, it also has a (pitifully low) minimum wage. All are entirely arbitrary restrictions on running a mens rugby league team. 

Super League is going to introduce a grading system for clubs, and it can include whatever it wants in that grading. It isn't inconceivable at all that if its a choice between 2 fairly even mens clubs for the final spot, 1 that runs a successful and well backed women's team and 1 that doesn't run a womens team at all, the former will be the preferred option.

Going forward, the importance of Womens and Wheelchair RL, as well as support for other forms of the game through community foundations, will only increase. Much like in the Mens game however, clubs in areas within the reach of successful clubs in these fields will feel more benefits from the over flow.

Yes rules can be set , doesn't mean they should be , fine in sports awash with money as we see in the NRL , we aren't , shouldn't be mandatory or affect a grading IMO , you are welcome to yours 

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm minded to agree with the notion that clubs shouldn't be required to run women's teams if they choose not to, but not because of the commercial argument. I don't want clubs running half-assed women's operations just because they've been mandated to, or because it ticks a box. The players deserve better than that. There are good examples in football (Leeds United being a good example) of what happens when clubs see women's teams as an afterthought or, dare I say it, a nuisance. 

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be part of grading criteria going forward - but if clubs don't want to run one (and/or run it properly), at least they're clear on the potential opportunity cost. 

Agree with your first bit , disagree with the second