My daughter played for a couple of years, from 12 to 14, thou because i was running my lads team only got to see a few games, but at least i saw her score a worldy from 25 yards. she was a top goal shooter at netball and enjoyed all sports. My wife would drive around the M25 for away matches as there weren't many local teams. She is now in Show business and is a dancer, actress, singer and Model. She was more a girly girl, than a tomboy, and i knew when her team played a USA team and the girl marking her wore a gum shield that it wasn't for the faint hearted. she is, and was very fit and very competitive, so she relished the battle.
The anti Beeb Theme will always be there, for a left wing bias ? No one told Paxman, who destroyed many a Labour MP( are you all right ED)
The most important thing is that young women do sport, and are respected, how can anyone have problems with a world cup being shown every 4 years ? The budget spent by the BBC must be peanuts compared to the men's world cup.
Just don't watch it if you find it crap, i hope young girls find role models, thou not the French girl who put her elbow in the face of Basset the England defender !
Well said. I think isms tend to reflect people’s own insecurities. It would be far better if we could discuss/be critical, in the same way as we are with the men’s game. If we were all the purists we claim to be, why do we watch Charlton and not a top Premiership club.
Talking about the football. I hope I am wrong and the team grow into the tournament, but I can’t see England beating Germany or Norway and one of these are our likely next opponents when we qualify for the later stages which is very likely. We really are missing Kelly Smith.
We been over this before Muttley but id just like to say that through out the thread I've always said that I've got absolutely no problem with women playing football and if the BBC want to pump their time and attention into it, then fine, i gave it another go but it wasn't for me and i wont be watching. What I've tried to say is that i can understand those that are unhappy about it. I PERSONALLY don't feel the women's game is entertaining or at a good enough level to warrant coverage from our national broadcaster and that other sports (especially those covered during the olympics) are at a better level and more entertaining.
Wont be saying anymore on the subject and wish the ladies team good luck in the tournament, always want England to do well in any sport.
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
So equality is fine as long as you limit the amount of equality there is on television? Is that your point?
Isnt that....promoting inequality?
License payers rage about the BBC promoting equality via sport shocker!
No. My point was made in the sentence that you quoted, not how you interpreted it.
It was this, just so you get it, 'equality gone mad'
Lets be honest the only reason the BEEB are showing it is for equality reasons within the greatest sport in the world. What other reason can there be? There are dozens of sports that get very little coverage, British sportsmen/women partake in them who are at the top of their game.....and yet the UKs biggest broadcasting company cover this. Also, as someone once said, all the while men cannot give birth, men and women can never be equal.
Ok so.....
It seems youre arguing that the quality of the football is shit, and the BBC are only showing it because of their equality agenda. Supposedly they are ignoring other sports that have a higher level of quality, but are being ignored. Im guessing you mean handball or hockey or something?
But surely if they showed these others sports as well, you would then argue that this is also pushing an equality agenda? Im not interested in these sports but theyre showing them anyways and wasting my license fee, that bloody equality agenda!
With football being the worlds most popular sport, doesnt it make sense to show this on telly if there are more people who are receptive to the sport, as apposed to showing hockey where the women may be amazing at it, but generally less people are interested in hockey anyways regardless of the gender of the players? Besides, whats actually wrong with an equality agenda? Surely if a society is being progressive and we want equal rights/opportunities for all, isnt it good to push an equality agenda? Pushing an equality agenda helped combat racism and sexism.
Do you have an issue with the Charlton OWS posting stories about our womens team?
How is being able to give birth a measure of gender equality, like Leuth said what if youre infertile or something. Perhaps its a measure of equality in the sense that men cant give birth so they are unequal in that respect? But anyways, what does that have to do with womens football TV coverage???
It just says a lot for the BBC now, that they place agenda's like equality, ahead of actual entertainment.
So you think being entertained is more important then promoting equality?
When i watch TV yes!!!!!!!!!!
So a young girl seeing womens football on TV for the first time, and perhaps realizing for the first time ever that football isnt a sport exclusively played by men, and perhaps she could aspire to play in the womens world cup one day is unimportant if it gets in the way of a cracking episode of Eastenders....
Television is for entertainment!
If a girl wants to get into football, there are plenty of clubs that advertise on social media, in schools etc. If a girl thinks that football is exclusively for men then id be more concerned by what their PE Teacher and parents are telling them, not what they are or aren't watching on TV.
Do you say the same for other sports, both female and male, that don't attract the coverage this tournament has? 'How will my son/daughter know if they could become the next Luol Deng when the BBC doesn't show any basketball!!!'
It could be because basketball isnt even in the Top 10 most popular sports in the uk bbc.co.uk/sport/0/22806853
Football on other is, so its it that much of a stretch for them to show women playing it?
Could it be the massive fee the NBA would demand to show NBA on free to air TV, a fee so big even Sky gave up showing it??
Hey they could show the BBL I guess? But the quality of that league is far below that of the NBA so it couldnt be classed as entertainment then, and you wouldnt want that right?
And therefore once again it comes down to the BBC's agenda rather than actual entertainment, which was the original point i made, and why i understand why some people have got the hump.
The average attendance of a women's Premier League game last season. 728. Thats popularity for you!
The second point....you've just answered the question for me!
The BBC is a left wing organisation with its own agendas despite having a charter to be impartial.
None of that makes it wrong to show ladies football though.
World Cup attract more interest than league games in the mens game too incidentally. The casual fan will take an interest.
It will also be interesting to see whether that average attendance figure of 728 you quote is higher next season following TV exposure on terrestial channels which the majority can actually access.
Quick snippet from Wiki about their pinko tree hugging political editor...
[Nick] Robinson was a founder member of Macclesfield Young Conservatives and rose through the ranks, becoming Cheshire Young Conservative Chairman (1982–84) and became a key activist in the moderate controlled North West Area organisation. National YC Chairman, Phil Pedley co-opted Robinson onto the Young Conservative National Advisory Committee in 1983 and appointed him National Campaign Director of Youth for Multilateral Disarmament. Robinson was elected National Vice Chairman in 1985–87 and succeeded fellow moderate, Richard Fuller, when he was elected Chairman of the National Young Conservatives on the moderate ticket against strong right-wing opposition
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
Not really 'extreme' is it, all I've said is that its a low standard of football and is not deserving of being shown on the BBC. But I see that a few on here don't agree that I should post on this thread, because I 'keep reinforcing my point'. Strange!....on a message board too?? We do have a funny bunch on here! At least you have spotted that I am not anti women or the WWC, just that its not deserving to be broadcast on the BEEB. Also, dont have the facts, but as someone mentioned above its the BBCs equality policy, so I guess there you have it. Also I read somewhere that it was costing the BBC circa £2Million. Cant find it now, don't have time, too busy, as my job as a Samaritan is taking up my time.
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
It is good that it's being shown, but understand when people believe the BBC isn't the place for it seeing as it's funded by the public.
Would they commission a second series of a bad programme if it didn't get the viewing figures the first time around? Of course they wouldn't.
Overboard in the same sense as others claiming Greenie is being 'extreme' in his condemnation/lack of support for it
I think World Cups are only allowed to be shown on Public broadcasting services not private subscription services like Sky/BT Sport, They are protected so that everyone can see them. Hence most large tournaments (Olympics,Euros,Rugby WC) being either on the BBC/ITV/Channel 4.
So regardless of equality, money etc it was bound to be one of the channels you get for having a TV Licence.
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
Not really 'extreme' is it, all I've said is that its a low standard of football and is not deserving of being shown on the BBC. But I see that a few on here don't agree that I should post on this thread, because I 'keep reinforcing my point'. Strange!....on a message board too?? We do have a funny bunch on here! At least you have spotted that I am not anti women or the WWC, just that its not deserving to be broadcast on the BEEB. Also, dont have the facts, but as someone mentioned above its the BBCs equality policy, so I guess there you have it. Also I read somewhere that it was costing the BBC circa £2Million. Cant find it now, don't have time, too busy, as my job as a Samaritan is taking up my time.
Mate if you don't have the facts, don't write this:
"No judgement clouded, you quoted stats and I quoted a fact."
And the someone [who] mentioned [equality] above, was you:
"Lets be honest the only reason the BEEB are showing it is for equality reasons within the greatest sport in the world."
"it appears the only reason that the BEEB are spending money on Womens Football must be about trying to equalise the sexes"
And if they have spent £2m on 52 matches, that's £39k per match, £25.5k per hour maximum (plus production costs). Absolute peanuts in TV terms - The Voice costs about £600k per hour, to put it in perspective, and a costume drama about £2m PER EPISODE.
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
Not really 'extreme' is it, all I've said is that its a low standard of football and is not deserving of being shown on the BBC. But I see that a few on here don't agree that I should post on this thread, because I 'keep reinforcing my point'. Strange!....on a message board too?? We do have a funny bunch on here! At least you have spotted that I am not anti women or the WWC, just that its not deserving to be broadcast on the BEEB. Also, dont have the facts, but as someone mentioned above its the BBCs equality policy, so I guess there you have it. Also I read somewhere that it was costing the BBC circa £2Million. Cant find it now, don't have time, too busy, as my job as a Samaritan is taking up my time.
Mate if you don't have the facts, don't write this:
"No judgement clouded, you quoted stats and I quoted a fact." Why, because you say so? And you are taking that quote it out of context. It was a reply to CAFC Trev
And the someone [who] mentioned [equality] above, was you:
"Lets be honest the only reason the BEEB are showing it is for equality reasons within the greatest sport in the world."
"it appears the only reason that the BEEB are spending money on Womens Football must be about trying to equalise the sexes"
Nah, it was CAFC Trev in one of his posts
And if they have spent £2m on 52 matches, that's £39k per match, £25.5k per hour maximum (plus production costs). Absolute peanuts in TV terms - The Voice costs about £600k per hour, to put it in perspective, and a costume drama about £2m PER EPISODE.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
So equality is fine as long as you limit the amount of equality there is on television? Is that your point?
Isnt that....promoting inequality?
License payers rage about the BBC promoting equality via sport shocker!
Sorry Greenie - he was responding to you.
"No judgement clouded, you quoted stats and I quoted a fact." Why, because you say so? And you are taking that quote it out of context. It was a reply to CAFC Trev
No, because you are misleading people by claiming to have quoted a fact when you haven't.
I am completely mystified that there are people moaning that the BBC shouldn't be putting the World Cup on because they don't think it's very good. If that's actually why people are upset then why isn't there a thread on every single programme they don't like? I like football, regardless of who's playing it and I'd rather see that on telly than Eastenders or some twaddle about a pensioner trying to sell her old teaspoons.
I haven't watched any of it as I'm aware that the quality is pretty poor when compared to the professional ranks of the men's game. Plus, I try to avoid the BBC where possible.
I can see where Greenie is coming from. Had ITV, Channel 4 or any other independent channel decided to screen it then I dare say he'd have no issue with it. The fact that the BBC, a largely public funded organisation, has decided to spend 'x' amount of licence fee payers money on an event with, arguably, a very limited audience will have some people scratching their heads.
Dump the licence fee, let advertisers fight over slots for their adverts and then see if the Beeb is willing to splash the cash on it. I dare say they wouldn't have been so keen to screen it if that were the case.
It can only be a good thing that the WWC is being shown but I do think some people are going overboard with the praise for it as though it's some kind of meteoric breakthrough in the world of sport. Personally, I think we'll be in pretty much the same situation in 20 years time and no amount of exposure is going to change it.
The fact remains that most people would rather pay their money to watch the man's game which, unfortunately for the women's game, is far superior in every aspect. I, as much as the next person, would like to see the women's game flourish but I'm not the type to support it for the sake of supporting it or out of some moral standpoint of false equality.
The men and women's game will never be equal as men are better at football than women are. It's an irrefutable fact that may not sit well with the equality pushers. Reason being is that it has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do with ability, talent and the demand to watch it from the public. And, until these parallels are equal, the game never will be.
That is the entire point of the BBC - to cater for minority tastes as well as mainstream, and not to be dictated to by the likes of Coca Cola, Visa and all the other kind of companies that threw their hands up in horror at the "surprise" corruption at FIFA...
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
It is good that it's being shown, but understand when people believe the BBC isn't the place for it seeing as it's funded by the public.
Would they commission a second series of a bad programme if it didn't get the viewing figures the first time around? Of course they wouldn't.
Overboard in the same sense as others claiming Greenie is being 'extreme' in his condemnation/lack of support for it
But it IS getting good viewing figures. See my earlier post.
I am completely mystified that there are people moaning that the BBC shouldn't be putting the World Cup on because they don't think it's very good. If that's actually why people are upset then why isn't there a thread on every single programme they don't like? I like football, regardless of who's playing it and I'd rather see that on telly than Eastenders or some twaddle about a pensioner trying to sell her old teaspoons.
I am completely mystified that there are people moaning that the BBC shouldn't be putting the World Cup on because they don't think it's very good. If that's actually why people are upset then why isn't there a thread on every single programme they don't like? I like football, regardless of who's playing it and I'd rather see that on telly than Eastenders or some twaddle about a pensioner trying to sell her old teaspoons.
I said i wouldn't comment again but i cant help myself, as the same question keeps getting asked. Why are you so mystified?
The point is that there are plenty of other womens sports that the BBC could show that tick both equality and quality, but they've gone for the WWC, which is pretty short on quality when compared to those other sports.
Someone said earlier that they should show both, which i agree with, but when the BBC are giving up sports such as Horse Racing, where women have such a heavy influence, its a point worth making.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
I think a vast portion of rights to many sports are held by Sky and BT, frankly because they have the money to gain exclusivity, and most sporting bodies make so much money out of this, they are happy to do this. This is why the Public Services lose so much, they cannot compete, therefore rely on the more protected tournaments. When your budget is the public money or advertising driven there is only so much you can do.
If we only gave a broadcast platform to those sports people deemed worthy, or good enough, how would any profile for any sport ever be raised? If we are judging what sports male or female get shown on TV because of quality, how exactly can you rate that? Sport is unpredictable, there are no guarantees.
imagine the outcry if the Olympics, International football and Rugby etc all got moved onto Subscription based services. shouldn't we consider ourselves lucky to live in a country where we can gain access to such a variety of sports? If we lived in a perfect world we would be able to see everything without actually spending a penny.
I am very each to there own on whether people like watching a sport or not, everyone has differing levels of opinion and expectations, and that is fine, But I also believe everything needs a platform, even more so one that anyone can access.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
Err....but that isnt following my logic though is it, unlike you I've tried to keep my analogies grounded in reality.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
Err....but that isnt following my logic though is it, unlike you I've tried to keep my analogies grounded in reality.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
Err....but that isnt following my logic though is it, unlike you I've tried to keep my analogies grounded in reality.
**Turns off the light**
You quoted me talking about viewing figures for minority sports, you come back with having a retainer on a posh restaurant that serves McDonalds. Perfect.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
Err....but that isnt following my logic though is it, unlike you I've tried to keep my analogies grounded in reality.
**Turns off the light**
You quoted me talking about viewing figures for minority sports, you come back with having a retainer on a posh restaurant that serves McDonalds. Perfect.
I do hope by the time we get to the knock out stage it all about the Positives and the CL who can't see any merit in ladies football will be watching the Men's U21, and football anoraks like myself will watch both. As the women's football World cup is the cheapest event The BBC will cover per match, Red button, BBC3 and four is hardly ramming it down your throats as you have the choice of watching a myriad of sports in between the adverts on Sky and BT.
25 years ago in the USA, football was played in all the kindergarten schools(so i was told by a mom from California) by boys and girls which might explain why the American women have always been one of the top teams, even thou the boys tend to play baseball, Tennis, American football,Track and field, Golf, or basketball as they get older.
I am completely mystified that there are people moaning that the BBC shouldn't be putting the World Cup on because they don't think it's very good. If that's actually why people are upset then why isn't there a thread on every single programme they don't like? I like football, regardless of who's playing it and I'd rather see that on telly than Eastenders or some twaddle about a pensioner trying to sell her old teaspoons.
Could the BBC show a programme about a pensioner from the East End selling teaspoons at a women's football match, then we'd all be able to find something to make us happy?
Or, given the level of moaning on this forum, something with which to find fault.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
But if millions are watching, how is the money wasted?
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
We did all this earlier in the thread, and so round and round it goes. Once more then......... .....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes. RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do. The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
Err....but that isnt following my logic though is it, unlike you I've tried to keep my analogies grounded in reality.
**Turns off the light**
You quoted me talking about viewing figures for minority sports, you come back with having a retainer on a posh restaurant that serves McDonalds. Perfect.
Watched USA Sweden. Superb game. Picking up on another comment, by the time we get to knock out all the whingers won't be in this thread 'cis they're not wTching and don't like Women's football?
FIFA screwed over the Womens WC by playing it on artificial fields. Even mens top level games played on it are a farce. My daughter played college soccer over here for 4 years and the level was good. I have no problem watching it and tonight's USA v Sweden was a good game
Comments
My daughter played for a couple of years, from 12 to 14, thou because i was running my lads team only got to see a few games, but at least i saw her score a worldy from 25 yards. she was a top goal shooter at netball and enjoyed all sports.
My wife would drive around the M25 for away matches as there weren't many local teams.
She is now in Show business and is a dancer, actress, singer and Model.
She was more a girly girl, than a tomboy, and i knew when her team played a USA team and the girl marking her wore a gum shield that it wasn't for the faint hearted. she is, and was very fit and very competitive, so she relished the battle.
The anti Beeb Theme will always be there, for a left wing bias ?
No one told Paxman, who destroyed many a Labour MP( are you all right ED)
The most important thing is that young women do sport, and are respected,
how can anyone have problems with a world cup being shown every 4 years ?
The budget spent by the BBC must be peanuts compared to the men's world cup.
Just don't watch it if you find it crap, i hope young girls find role models, thou not the French girl who put her elbow in the face of Basset the England defender !
Wont be saying anymore on the subject and wish the ladies team good luck in the tournament, always want England to do well in any sport.
Then you go on to say it can only be a good thing it is being shown?
And who is going overboard with praising it? There has been a reaction to the extreme "anti"-views of Greenie and others, but like yourself it's clear that even his posts are more about Beeb bashing than the actual WWC. Still waiting for those facts by the way Greenie...
[Nick] Robinson was a founder member of Macclesfield Young Conservatives and rose through the ranks, becoming Cheshire Young Conservative Chairman (1982–84) and became a key activist in the moderate controlled North West Area organisation. National YC Chairman, Phil Pedley co-opted Robinson onto the Young Conservative National Advisory Committee in 1983 and appointed him National Campaign Director of Youth for Multilateral Disarmament. Robinson was elected National Vice Chairman in 1985–87 and succeeded fellow moderate, Richard Fuller, when he was elected Chairman of the National Young Conservatives on the moderate ticket against strong right-wing opposition
Surprised it took so long for that to be noticed.
Just me being deliberately provocative.
But I see that a few on here don't agree that I should post on this thread, because I 'keep reinforcing my point'. Strange!....on a message board too?? We do have a funny bunch on here!
At least you have spotted that I am not anti women or the WWC, just that its not deserving to be broadcast on the BEEB.
Also, dont have the facts, but as someone mentioned above its the BBCs equality policy, so I guess there you have it. Also I read somewhere that it was costing the BBC circa £2Million. Cant find it now, don't have time, too busy, as my job as a Samaritan is taking up my time.
Would they commission a second series of a bad programme if it didn't get the viewing figures the first time around? Of course they wouldn't.
Overboard in the same sense as others claiming Greenie is being 'extreme' in his condemnation/lack of support for it
So regardless of equality, money etc it was bound to be one of the channels you get for having a TV Licence.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Like you, I'm open to being corrected though.
"No judgement clouded, you quoted stats and I quoted a fact."
And the someone [who] mentioned [equality] above, was you:
"Lets be honest the only reason the BEEB are showing it is for equality reasons within the greatest sport in the world."
"it appears the only reason that the BEEB are spending money on Womens Football must be about trying to equalise the sexes"
And if they have spent £2m on 52 matches, that's £39k per match, £25.5k per hour maximum (plus production costs). Absolute peanuts in TV terms - The Voice costs about £600k per hour, to put it in perspective, and a costume drama about £2m PER EPISODE.
You could spend all day comparing programme costs. But the £2million spent on the WWC should have been better spent an other sports IMO. Thats all I have been saying.
If you put a more obscure sport on the Beeb and no one watches, isnt the money wasted then?
"No judgement clouded, you quoted stats and I quoted a fact." Why, because you say so? And you are taking that quote it out of context. It was a reply to CAFC Trev
No, because you are misleading people by claiming to have quoted a fact when you haven't.
The point is that there are plenty of other womens sports that the BBC could show that tick both equality and quality, but they've gone for the WWC, which is pretty short on quality when compared to those other sports.
Someone said earlier that they should show both, which i agree with, but when the BBC are giving up sports such as Horse Racing, where women have such a heavy influence, its a point worth making.
Once more then.........
.....you enjoy it and so do many others (thats great for you), but millions of people love McDonalds, following your logic if one of the best restaurants started serving McDonald burgers, would you eat there? I doubt it. Moving it forward, supposing you had paid a retainer to eat there, would you be pissed off? Again I suspect yes.
RE more obscure sports, I want to watch sportsman and women at the peak of their skills in the best sports in which they do well at and certainly better than I could do.
The BBC is not independent so viewing figures don't affect sponsors payments. I would most definitely be open to sports that I didn't know, I watched the archery at the Olympics and was blown away. (Cue arrow jokes)
Trouble is, we have embraced mediocrity, for many facets of life in this country, and thats not good.
But hey, if you and the others enjoy it. crack on, I assume you will all be going to women football when the season starts again?
If we only gave a broadcast platform to those sports people deemed worthy, or good enough, how would any profile for any sport ever be raised? If we are judging what sports male or female get shown on TV because of quality, how exactly can you rate that? Sport is unpredictable, there are no guarantees.
imagine the outcry if the Olympics, International football and Rugby etc all got moved onto Subscription based services. shouldn't we consider ourselves lucky to live in a country where we can gain access to such a variety of sports? If we lived in a perfect world we would be able to see everything without actually spending a penny.
I am very each to there own on whether people like watching a sport or not, everyone has differing levels of opinion and expectations, and that is fine, But I also believe everything needs a platform, even more so one that anyone can access.
and football anoraks like myself will watch both.
As the women's football World cup is the cheapest event The BBC will cover per match, Red button, BBC3 and four is hardly ramming it down your throats as you have the choice of watching a myriad of sports in between the adverts on Sky and BT.
25 years ago in the USA, football was played in all the kindergarten schools(so i was told by a mom from California) by boys and girls which might explain why the American women have always been one of the top teams, even thou the boys tend to play baseball, Tennis, American football,Track and field, Golf, or basketball as they get older.
Or, given the level of moaning on this forum, something with which to find fault.