[Albion] Women’s Football

[hans kraay fan club]

Well, one very good reason is that Arsenal women played nearly all their home WSL (and all their WCL home legs) at the Emirates. Its why I'm baffled why we are going to build a womens' stadium rather than investing those funds in paying higher transfer fees, higher wages and for longer contracts...and play our womens home games at the Amex. If Arsenal can do it (with both their men and women in Europe last season) then I'd like to hear Barber explain why we can't.

I can field that one for Barber, if you like?

The planning permission for the building of the Amex has attached, some strict limits on the number of matches that can be hosted per season.

Are they making MONEY from it though? You can get a season ticket at the Emirates for £100. Just over half the price of one at Burgess Hill Town.

I don't see how Arsenal are getting it so right, when they have to pretty much give tickets away. And until they actually start making money from it, it's unsustainable in the long run, isn't it?

Unless they've taken a strategic decision to treat the whole club as one entity - and that each separate arm doesn't necessarily have to be profitable in isolation? Perhaps they feel that the exposure / brand awareness / good PR gleaned from the womens' team's considerable success is worthwhile return on the comparatively modest investment?

 

[boik]

Yes I do, definitely. I don't see why it's controversial to say that a goalkeeper who is 5"5 has a massive disadvantage over a goalkeeper who is 6"5 when in the same goal, and that the game would be better adjusted for the former. But quite apart from that, the Amex is a particularly big pitch, it's the 3rd or 4th biggest in the country, isn't it? If we build a stadium specifically for the women then I can't imagine we wouldn't make the pitch a bit smaller.


I really don't see why that makes me a dinosaur. The men's game has had many changes over the years, I'd say being open to the idea of evolving and adapting the rules to make the game better is the opposite of being a dinosaur.

I'm also definitely too young to be a dinosaur.

Not that old tosh about women goalkeepers needing smaller goals.

I had a quick look and there were a good few old goalkeepers around 5'8 - 5'9. They didn't have smaller goals back then did they?

And just so you really understand. Mary Earps is 5'8. Siobhan Chamberlain is 5'11.

Please don't try and use "facts" when you just don't like something.

 

[tomfitz12]

I can field that one for Barber, if you like?

The planning permission for the building of the Amex has attached, some strict limits on the number of matches that can be hosted per season.


Unless they've taken a strategic decision to treat the whole club as one entity - and that each separate arm doesn't necessarily have to be profitable in isolation? Perhaps they feel that the exposure / brand awareness / good PR gleaned from the womens' team's considerable success is worthwhile return on the comparatively modest investment?

I don't think Arsenal's PR on women is top of the priority list considering who the mens team still play at centre Mid every single week

 

[Commander]

Not that old tosh about women goalkeepers needing smaller goals.

I had a quick look and there were a good few old goalkeepers around 5'8 - 5'9. They didn't have smaller goals back then did they?

And just so you really understand. Mary Earps is 5'8. Siobhan Chamberlain is 5'11.

Please don't try and use "facts" when you just don't like something.

So the tallest keeper you could find to quote is the same height as Maty Ryan. It doesn't feel like the strongest comeback.

I've watched the women at the Amex and I've watched women's football at grass roots level. There is a girl in my son's team in fact, she is class (and is in the Albion academy). I have sons, but if I had a daughter I would be massively pushing her to play football. You can't tell me not to use 'facts' then quote an opinion at me about me not liking it. I genuinely think it would be a better sport if they made adjustments to it, just like they have in golf / tennis etc. I think in trying to create the same product as the men's sport they are making a mistake, and that the 30,000 attendances of Arsenal where they are almost giving tickets away is skewing the perception of the popularity of it as a spectator sport.

I've read on here previously that the Albion themselves are really struggling to find a way to get people to engage with the women's social media posts, for example, and don't really know how to fix it. And the usual crying 'sexist' at anyone who wants to discuss ways to make the product better is no different to those crying 'racist' at somebody who has concerns about unchecked immigration. It's just a lazy argument. The attendances of the Albion women's team speak for themselves, they really do. It DOES need a massive improvement for it to be a sustainable professional sport long term. In my opinion, you are of course free to disagree.

 

[Simster]

Are they making MONEY from it though? You can get a season ticket at the Emirates for £100. Just over half the price of one at Burgess Hill Town.

I don't see how Arsenal are getting it so right, when they have to pretty much give tickets away. And until they actually start making money from it, it's unsustainable in the long run, isn't it?

Because it is absolutely painful watching the women play on an enormous pitch in front of a near-empty stadium. It feels like the kids 'play on the pitch' thing they do at the end of the season. A smaller ground is definitely the way forward. It would be so much better, and presumably much more cost effective in the long run.

I can't believe this hasn't been picked up yet.

I've followed football for 45 years, and in that time I'd say football clubs have singularly failed to make money, full stop. Chelsea's front four alone cost one quarter of a billion pounds in transfer fees, yet nobody is asking how much money they're making.

Either we're a football club or we're not. The entire women's game does not need to be justifying its existence or clubs use of their stadiums based on how much money they make, all the while the men's game continues to pay players up to £300k a week and haemorrhage money having done so through it's entire existence.

 

[amexer]

Whilst I appreciate to suceed needs a new audience but considering incredible publicity it gets am surprised attendances have not increased more. With STs not much more than £100 and free bus with Seagull Travel I find it hard that it can be justified in having full time players.

 

[jackalbion]

Whilst I appreciate to suceed needs a new audience but considering incredible publicity it gets am surprised attendances have not increased more. With STs not much more than £100 and free bus with Seagull Travel I find it hard that it can be justified in having full time players.

I think to see if it’s truly popular we need to move it back to Brighton full time, then we can judge it.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

I would watch the Albion women more, but it would mean watching the Albion men less.

I can’t justify more days given up for football when I have other priorities to juggle.

Double-header men / women fixtures would help but I guess the logistics would be problematic.

 

[HangletonGull]

I have limited time and money so I prioritise, the thing that still baffled me when we where at Newcastle why did they play the same day made no sense

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I can't believe this hasn't been picked up yet.

I've followed football for 45 years, and in that time I'd say football clubs have singularly failed to make money, full stop. Chelsea's front four alone cost one quarter of a billion pounds in transfer fees, yet nobody is asking how much money they're making.

Either we're a football club or we're not. The entire women's game does not need to be justifying its existence or clubs use of their stadiums based on how much money they make, all the while the men's game continues to pay players up to £300k a week and haemorrhage money having done so through it's entire existence.

At the end of the day if TB wants to spend tens of millions funding a Stadium because he feels that its the right thing to do for the women's team, bringing them back to brighton and giving them the best chance of success, I dont see why anyone would see harm in that. Clearly its not impacting our spending on players as it wont be too much longer until we've spent 100 m on players for the mens team this summer already.

I just want us to finish it before Palace put a spade in the ground for their new stand, will be something to build two new stadiums whilst Selhurst becomes more and more decrepit.

 

[Commander]

I can't believe this hasn't been picked up yet.

I've followed football for 45 years, and in that time I'd say football clubs have singularly failed to make money, full stop. Chelsea's front four alone cost one quarter of a billion pounds in transfer fees, yet nobody is asking how much money they're making.

Either we're a football club or we're not. The entire women's game does not need to be justifying its existence or clubs use of their stadiums based on how much money they make, all the while the men's game continues to pay players up to £300k a week and haemorrhage money having done so through it's entire existence.

Fair point. But maybe I phrased it wrong- Is it LOSING money? Because if it is, then it is a vanity (or possibly even virtual-signalling?) project. And I would imagine the last thing a lot of football clubs need is yet another drain on resources. It's been mentioned already, but if the men's team are struggling on the pitch and the women's team are haemorrhaging cash, then where would most fans rather that money went? I wonder at what point fans will start having that discussion.

I would watch the Albion women more, but it would mean watching the Albion men less.

I can’t justify more days given up for football when I have other priorities to juggle.

I think this is a huge part of the problem. Similar to an issue with non-league football, I think. I've often thought that if the county league teams kicked off at 10am or 11am on a Saturday they'd get bigger crowds.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Yes I do, definitely. I don't see why it's controversial to say that a goalkeeper who is 5"5 has a massive disadvantage over a goalkeeper who is 6"5 when in the same goal, and that the game would be better adjusted for the former. But quite apart from that, the Amex is a particularly big pitch, it's the 3rd or 4th biggest in the country, isn't it? If we build a stadium specifically for the women then I can't imagine we wouldn't make the pitch a bit smaller.

I have browsed through this thread today. A really interesting and informative read.
A few bizarre takes.
The most bizarre being those who are so offended by the very idea of adjusting the pitch/goal sizes for the women’s game. You can disagree with the idea, but some of the emotive comments…..odd.
It is as if some see the idea as an affront to the good name of women.

 

[Taybha]

We went to 3 @omens games last season and had a absolute blast of a time,we picked 3 away games and made the most of a good weekend away ,the standard has got better year on year from what I can see and Baggers has improved out of her skin from the first time I saw her.
I can't justify a season ticket for the men's or womens team living 300 miles away from Brighton but as a spectacle and banter with the home fans watching the Brighton and Hove Albion women is something I enjoy every now and then,playing in Brighton in a day purpose built 12k stadium of their own would be fantastic for both the women and supporters.

Yours sincerely Captain Obvious

 

[Commander]

I have browsed through this thread today. A really interesting and informative read.
A few bizarre takes.
The most bizarre being those who are so offended by the very idea of adjusting the pitch/goal sizes for the women’s game. You can disagree with the idea, but some of the emotive comments…..odd.
It is as if some see the idea as an affront to the good name of women.

It is odd, isn't it? I'm pretty sure if I had a daughter playing in goal I would be thinking this is f***ing ridiculous, as she got lobbed for the 4th time when on her goal line. So many times I've seen a goal on social media scored in women's football that they are saying is an absolute screamer, and when you watch it it's about two foot away from the top corner, with the poor keeper at absolute full stretch and still a foot short of the ball. It just doesn't seem fair to me!

I'd also argue that the dinosaurs in the game are the ones that can't see why 12-13 year old boys shouldn't be playing 11-a-side on full size pitches with full size goals. It's exactly the same principle, and yet somehow to use the same logic for the women's game is somehow seen as sexist. I'd argue it's the exact opposite, and it would make the game far more inclusive in the long run, because at the moment all that is going to happen as the game progresses is that the best players will just end up being the biggest, strongest and tallest women, thus ruining the chances of 99% of talented girls who don't possess those physical attributes. Women's football is on the crest of a wave and genuinely has an opportunity to create a brilliant and unique sport that could be insanely popular, and grow a huge fanbase from both inside and outside of the men's game. But with the path it is currently on, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[DJ NOBO]

It is odd, isn't it? I'm pretty sure if I had a daughter playing in goal I would be thinking this is f***ing ridiculous, as she got lobbed for the 4th time when on her goal line. So many times I've seen a goal on social media scored in women's football that they are saying is an absolute screamer, and when you watch it it's about two foot away from the top corner, with the poor keeper at absolute full stretch and still a foot short of the ball. It just doesn't seem fair to me!

I'd also argue that the dinosaurs in the game are the ones that can't see why 12-13 year old boys shouldn't be playing 11-a-side on full size pitches with full size goals. It's exactly the same principle, and yet somehow to use the same logic for the women's game is somehow seen as sexist. I'd argue it's the exact opposite, and it would make the game far more inclusive in the long run, because at the moment all that is going to happen as the game progresses is that the best players will just end up being the biggest, strongest and tallest women, thus ruining the chances of 99% of talented girls who don't possess those physical attributes. Women's football is on the crest of a wave and genuinely has an opportunity to create a brilliant and unique sport that could be insanely popular, and grow a huge fanbase from both inside and outside of the men's game. But with the path it is currently on, I don't think that's going to happen.

There are some good reasons raised in the thread why it may not work. It’s the take that it’s an ugly, almost sexist, suggestion that is baffling.
Anyway, I learned a lot about the women’s game from some who clearly have a genuine interest. Your op was also a good starting point, even if your views may have softened since!
I remember when I briefly lived in the US that soccer was mainly seen as a women’s game. All girls seemed to play. That’s something to aspire to here in schools. I’m certainly encouraging my daughter to play. Mastering the basics early is key. She is getting there.

 

[The Clamp]

 

[boik]

So the tallest keeper you could find to quote is the same height as Maty Ryan. It doesn't feel like the strongest comeback.

I've watched the women at the Amex and I've watched women's football at grass roots level. There is a girl in my son's team in fact, she is class (and is in the Albion academy). I have sons, but if I had a daughter I would be massively pushing her to play football. You can't tell me not to use 'facts' then quote an opinion at me about me not liking it. I genuinely think it would be a better sport if they made adjustments to it, just like they have in golf / tennis etc. I think in trying to create the same product as the men's sport they are making a mistake, and that the 30,000 attendances of Arsenal where they are almost giving tickets away is skewing the perception of the popularity of it as a spectator sport.

I've read on here previously that the Albion themselves are really struggling to find a way to get people to engage with the women's social media posts, for example, and don't really know how to fix it. And the usual crying 'sexist' at anyone who wants to discuss ways to make the product better is no different to those crying 'racist' at somebody who has concerns about unchecked immigration. It's just a lazy argument. The attendances of the Albion women's team speak for themselves, they really do. It DOES need a massive improvement for it to be a sustainable professional sport long term. In my opinion, you are of course free to disagree.

What? You've chosen to ignore the fact that male goalies used to be smaller with the same sized goals. And then introduced Maty Ryan for no apparent reason. I chose the 2 women keepers not because they were especially tall (I didn't check any others), but because I thought you'd know them.

Anyway, you carry on thinking that the size of the goals is the problem.

 

[Commander]

What? You've chosen to ignore the fact that male goalies used to be smaller with the same sized goals. And then introduced Maty Ryan for no apparent reason. I chose the 2 women keepers not because they were especially tall (I didn't check any others), but because I thought you'd know them.

Anyway, you carry on thinking that the size of the goals is the problem.

On the male goalies point- the game was completely different then. Heavier balls, it was much slower, the players were much less fit. You can't tell me a 5"8 keeper would do well in today's game.

Give it 10-15 years or so, and I bet the average female professional footballer will be over 6 foot tall. Thus excluding the vast majority of the population, no matter how talented they are.

 

[All Four Grounds]

The women’s team are unlikely to fill the Amex regularly so it makes sense for them to have their own purpose built stadium where as many home games as possible are played to capacity crowds with a unique atmosphere (like less booing of former players and more family friendly chants) which will cheer them onto glory to make us one of the most successful and sought after teams in women’s football to both play for and support.

 

[jackalbion]

Fair point. But maybe I phrased it wrong- Is it LOSING money? Because if it is, then it is a vanity (or possibly even virtual-signalling?) project. And I would imagine the last thing a lot of football clubs need is yet another drain on resources. It's been mentioned already, but if the men's team are struggling on the pitch and the women's team are haemorrhaging cash, then where would most fans rather that money went? I wonder at what point fans will start having that discussion.


I think this is a huge part of the problem. Similar to an issue with non-league football, I think. I've often thought that if the county league teams kicked off at 10am or 11am on a Saturday they'd get bigger crowds.

This is something I did suggest to the club at the women’s fan forum and they have attempted this season to move the games alternative to men’s game when they can (TV obviously being the main obstacle). Always get higher attendances in non league when it’s bank holiday Monday, but ultimately the blocker to that usually is the players can’t commit to an 11am /Friday night due to work commitments.