Jump to content

ramblur

Member
  • Content count

    4,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ramblur

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

714 profile views
  1. DCFC Ladies

    No I didn't. I suggested you were likening a comparison of the mens' game to the womens' game ,to a comparison of the Olympics to the Paralympics, two entirely different comparisons. As I've tried to say already,the whole point of the Paralympics is to afford those sportsmen/women the opportunity to compete,with viewing figures being of relatively minor importance (though I've no doubt the competitors would appreciate large live audiences to create an atmosphere). We'll just have to wait and see what happens to the ladies' game,as I for one believe it will develop into a highly watchable spectacle on full sized pitches.When I was a kid,apart from a few games,womens' tennis wasn't really worth watching,but there was no suggestion that the courts should be downsized,and if this had happened we'd never have had the riches of many highly entertaining contests on full sized courts that we have today.You can't really compare a highly intense individual sport to a team game involving 11 players. If each of those 11 players were to replicate the effort,pace and ground covered by many of the modern day's ladies tennis players,then you'd certainly have the makings of a real spectacle on a full sized pitch(not forgetting skill,of course).But the ladies' tennis game evolved into what it now is over a number of years,and I wouldn't back against it eventually going to 5 sets. Anyway,we just seem to be going round in circles now,so I'm out.Time will tell who's right and I for one believe that downsizing pitches is the worst thing they could do.
  2. DCFC Ladies

    Firstly,I didn't insinuate that you were equating ladies' football to the Paralympics at all. The Paralympics for the competitors are nothing at all to do with the dramas of their personal stories,but an opportunity to compete against the best of their peers (and,just maybe,proudly show that life doesn't end with a disability).It really doesn't matter how many people watch the events,what really matters is that they're given the chance to participate. I didn't realise that you had to be able to hoof the ball over the halfway line to produce end to end football,as it's quite possible to get from one end to another via shorter passing.If an attack breaks down and the opposition then threatens the goal (whether by short or long passing),then you've got the makings of end to end stuff,like boxers trading punches.If you're excited by hoofball to hoofball,then yes,we most certainly do have different motivations for watching sport. I really don't know how you expect the ladies' game to stand on its own two feet by effectively taking spectators away from the mens' game that has been established for well over a century,has had billions put into it by owners,as well as the megabucks from tv. The current 'model' has seen the ladies' game improve demonstrably over the years (I can see it clearly enough),and the more it improves,the more watchable it will become,hence a virtuous circle. I find their game watchable on full size pitches,thank you very much,so no need for downsizing,just so that a keeper can hoof it over the halfway line. As a keen tennis fan I've seen the power and strength of the ladies' game improve almost beyond belief over the years,and I suspect the same will happen with ladies' football.I'm surprised you only managed to come up with one deficiency in their game,because,whenever I've watched they seem incapable of diving/rolling over 6 times when tackled/deliberately going over the top of the ball and waving imaginary cards at referees, just to cite a few.Perhaps you're right -why on earth do I watch it?
  3. Man Utd ticket details and KO Time announced.

    Fine gesture by Mel,and very happy for our loyal fans.Would like to point out that my input was purely academic,and not a call for subsidies (as I'm not in a position to call for anything,even if I do support the ladies )
  4. Man Utd ticket details and KO Time announced.

    Back to school for me - 40% of £45 is,of course,£18 which makes the situation a bit better.
  5. 12/12/17 - Fans Forum at The Yard

    No rush.
  6. DCFC Ladies

    A long time ago I started a thread about the history of the club,fueled by an old document I found lodged at Companies House.I seem to remember that one or two of the well heeled were involved in our early development.I wouldn't begrudge the ladies a bit of modern day philanthropy (after all it's not going to be funded by social security,is it?).If by forging 'their own sport for themselves' you mean by attracting paying customers to meet all the expenses,then that's completely unrealistic.Do you expect them to build their own stadia? In this day and age people want to watch football in comfort,a bit different to a Victorian era which knew nothing different.Anyway,in the mens' game today ,very few clubs aren't heavily subsidised by owners (need look no further than our own club),so it hardly stands on its own two feet,in spite of the masses of tv money that flows into it. I'm not particularly bothered if the keeper's kicks don't get over the halfway line tbh.Whenever I watch the ladies,I like to see what they're trying to do,and it seems fairly sound to me.I've noticed on forums that some always want to try and find the negatives,rather than see any positives. I find your reference to the Paralympics a bit distasteful,tbh, as I suspect there's an unwritten suggestion that ladies' football to mens' football is similar to a comparison of the Paralympics to the Olympics? As it happens,although I watch a lot of certain sports,I watch very little of the Olympics,so,no I don't watch the Paralympics. However,if it features on the news I don't potter off to make a cup of tea.I've a lot of admiration for these sportsmen/women and am delighted they get the chance to showcase their abilities on a big stage,even if the keepers can't reach the halfway line.
  7. Man Utd ticket details and KO Time announced.

    Interesting one,this. If the steep price put off very large numbers of our fans,then the club could potentially miss out on 40% take from such fans (the match expenses would have been borne already,so any additional tickets would attract the full 40%,if you see what I mean). The tricky thing would be to try and predict the subsidy required to get these fans to 'bite'.I suspect that if the tickets were subsidised,the club would lose a bit,but not spectacularly. It wouldn't lose out to the total extent of such subsidy because of its additional take on extra tickets sold (for those priced at £45,that's an extra £16 per ticket,which covers the subsidy for that ticket and also contributes £6 towards subsidies of those who would have gone anyway,if you pitched the subsidy @ £10/ticket for this class)
  8. Man Utd ticket details and KO Time announced.

    Not as big as many people think,I suspect. For stewards etc you're talking casual pay for an evening's work and match officials' expenses won't be that much.If you look at the largest expense,policing,in 15/16 Utd were charged £925k for the whole season,so add on a bit of inflation and do the maths (the article I saw didn't specify if this was purely Prem League games).
  9. DCFC Ladies

    Tbf I strayed off the beaten track a bit and the issue is whether the club should/will facilitate the Ladies in their new application.The actual expenses of the Ladies team are exempt for FFP purposes,but they still have to be paid by someone,viz Mel,so it's his call,with guidance from the board. Now if you and the other paying customers were prepared to pay triple what you currently pay (and maybe a bit more),then Mel wouldn't have to make the financial input he currently makes.In those circumstances you might be a bit more justified in criticising anything that is to be done. I see references to the Victorian era (and I'm starting to think some posters might belong there),but mens' football would never have taken off without the inputs of local businessmen.Here we have our very own local businessman giving a helping hand to the ladies,so I don't see much difference there.I would hate to deny young girls their dreams of making it in their local club,and possibly then going on to international honours.I really don't get why there is so much animosity directed to the girls,as it's not as though their game impacts on the traditional mens' game,as the two can easily run side by side. I only latched onto the video highlights as I had some free data to use,and must say I'm ignorant as to whether any of their games are streamed live and available on subscription.If they aren't,I for one would happily pay a bit extra to see same and cheer them on from afar.If I had the choice between watching live CL for free and watching a live stream of Derby Ladies,then I'd watch the latter . After seeing their obvious delight at beating the gumps,they can wear the Rams logo wherever they like ,in my book.
  10. DCFC Ladies

    1) Nothing,but I don't see the point. 2) Just pointing out that ladies contribute a not insignificant amount to football finances in general,and at a time when obscene amounts of money go into the Premier League,which just seems to fuel ever spiraling wages and transfer fees, I wouldn't decry the relatively small amounts that go into the ladies' game.
  11. DCFC Ladies

    Thoroughly agree. I enjoyed watching the highlights v gumps recently (some impressive long range shooting) and watched the recent England ladies match,and thought the football wasn't bad at all.Admittedly my ISP network was down all day,so couldn't listen to Rams commentary,but even if that hadn't been the case I'd intended listening to commentary and watching England Ladies. Comments such as complaining about funds being diverted from the mens' game to the ladies' game annoy me immensely.Why shouldn't ladies' football be well funded when the mens' game is awash with funds by comparison? How many women watch the mens' game and thereby contribute directly and indirectly to the vast funds generated?
  12. GR - stick or twist

    If Mel is funding us right up to the limits that FFP allow (per Stephen Pearce),then that kind of implies we must be close to such limits.I think 'sailing close to the wind' is a bit strong though,as it suggests dangerous,bordering on reckless.If you plan something (and no doubt leave room for contingencies), I think it's a bit different.
  13. Rowett not in frame for Baggies

    Get up your nose as well.
  14. Derby County v Ipswich Town

    As far as the 'Rowett way' goes,I'll judge it finally when he's got all the players he wants to carry it through.However,I think the signs are very encouraging and we may yet well get consistent excitement if it all comes off. I like the way we seem to have real intent to score goals,and that Gary's late substitutions often indicate a desire not just to settle for a draw,even away from home.
  15. GR - stick or twist

    If you go back to 15/16 (and I'm ultra careful what I write about this now),the club told us that the FFP 'loss' was £9m,£4m below the average for a 3 year cycle (£39m/3),but without the exceptional income of £12m arising from the cancellation of external debt,the underlying position would have been £21m,£8m over the average. Even if the sharp rise of c£7m in admin expenses for 15/16 were to completely fall out (pretty unlikely I would have thought,but there again I don't know what it entailed),it would still leave an underlying position of £1m over average. It's important to realise that the 15/16 activity didn't just impact that year,as wages/amortisation feed through into future years (the 15/16 wage bill rocketed,but because of the way amortisation is now calculated,this wouldn't be anything like as big a problem. What I'm therefore saying is that if the admin rise disappeared wholly in 16/17,then in that year (all other things being roughly equal),we would not only have had to trade equally in terms of FFP,but also have to recoup(at least) another £1m to get down to the £13m average.Thus,the sale of Hendrick and the loan fee for Martin came as no surprise to me,as did Pearson's comment (not long before he got the boot),that any future incomings would have to be balanced by outgoings because of FFP As his earlier net activity would have been positive in FFP terms,then his later comment must surely mean that we had work to do at the outset of that season. Fast forward to this season,and it would seem to me that we would have had to at least trade equally.It's impossible for me to say if the whole of the Hughes/Ince fees were needed in this regard (because we might again have needed to trade at a surplus,again because of any admin expenses increase that may have carried through both 16/17 and 17/18). What exactly did MM and SP say at that forum,because my recollection was that SP said MM was funding us to the very limits that FFP allowed. The opportunities for exceptional income due to loan cancellations appear limited,as the external debt (as at 30/6/16) was only £3m,something which I expect to be the last piece of an enigmatic jigsaw from 14/15.Tbh,I'd be absolutely amazed if that loan were to be written off by the Co-Op Bank.
×

Important Information

We use Cookies - by using this site or closing this message you’re agreeing to our Cookies policy Privacy Policy