He's denying them the possibility of playing for Leeds United without undergoing a gender re-assignment.
Not sure about football league rules on that one, are women allowed to play in the first team if good enough ?
I know they can at junior level but not sure about senior level.
I had assumed that there was a strict divide between men and women's football, but a quick google makes it seem it used to be less set in stone, this news article says fifa banned a woman from competing in a men's league 10 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4110845.stm
I think before that it was unprecedented so they hadn't had to make a rule, now the leagues are split by gender definitively.
"Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong."
He's denying them the possibility of playing for Leeds United without undergoing a gender re-assignment.
Not sure about football league rules on that one, are women allowed to play in the first team if good enough ?
I know they can at junior level but not sure about senior level.
I had assumed that there was a strict divide between men and women's football, but a quick google makes it seem it used to be less set in stone, this news article says fifa banned a woman from competing in a men's league 10 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4110845.stm
I think before that it was unprecedented so they hadn't had to make a rule, now the leagues are split by gender definitively.
ok thats a fair enough point, remember back in the 70's we had a lady players (also played for Doncaster Belles) play a few games for the local league team but of course that was not at proffesional level and well before the 10 years ago the decision was made.
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
I think you are been petty accusing me of insulting people to get your argument across. All I basically said that if someone wants to sponsor they have the right to and I also believe they have the right to say no.
[/quote]
I didn't say that to get my argument across, I said it because I found that statement dismissive and insulting to me and to the women's team in general.
SiMamu wrote:Women deserve equal opportunities though, Cellino is not granting them that.
He's denying them nothing he's just not paying for it, Leeds Ladies football Club will still exist.
Does his action show any care or concern for the wider LUFC community?
Is LUFC for boys only?????
He is currently sorting out a lot of cost cutting measures which hopefully will allow our club to survive. If you hadn't noticed he inherited a lot of financial issues because of years of bad management .
No it isn't only for boys i'm sure they'll be a few ladies coming to watch the team.
Out of interest do we know how many Football League Clubs sponsor Ladies teams ?
My issue isn't whether its a good or bad decision, my issue is people calling it discrimination.[/q
uote]
I had noticed that he bought a big mess and yes we do want our club to survive and I am aware of all the poor management, that went before, I've been a supporter for nearly 50 years.
I think the problem lies like others have said in the complete lack of PR at the club.
Cutting costs is imperative, but a football club has to exist on more than one level. Most clubs have a complexity of aspects which make the club what it is. Many clubs have a ladies team, many clubs will have past, successful players around as part of their match day 'entertainment'. To dismiss many of these as irrelevant and unworthy of any consideration is to dismiss the heart and soul of the club. It is not the fact that Cellino has done these things, it is the way he has just cast these aspects aside, apparently having no care or concern to consider how he can accommodate them. The first team is important and is the bread and butter of course, but if you take everything else away then it starts to become a hollow victory! Imho.
Great post Frankie. It does feel in some ways like part of the indentity of the club is being stripped away with some of these actions. The ladies, the legends, Bromby, Naylor etc.
I think you are been petty accusing me of insulting people to get your argument across. All I basically said that if someone wants to sponsor they have the right to and I also believe they have the right to say no.
I didn't say that to get my argument across, I said it because I found that statement dismissive and insulting to me and to the women's team in general.[/quote]
Well as its not my intention to insult anyone, I just wanted to make the point that everyone has the right to spend their own money how they see fit.
But as you are insulted I will leave the debate there and we will just have to disagree.
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
Mellor wrote:
To answer your question - the pitch always looks too big with the result that the play seems laboured. This problem doesn't exist in cycling or athletics where the events are generally shortened or different. The lack of a women's Tour De France does seem sexist though I have to say.
I watch sport for the excitement. The ladies football I have seen, on telly, isn't. Juniors playing on full size pitches has the same effect. I'm no fan of swimming in general - men or women it's pretty boring for me. I'm selective. Simple as that.
By the way Beryl Burton, one of the finest cyclists ever, held the record for most miles travelled in 12 hours for a number of years. That's cycling for you. Bradford's finest.
No need for justifications, I don't think anyone thinks you a sexist just because you don't watch women's football, very few people do. I have only ever seen a few segments of matches on tv, England ladies national team, and it wasn't terribly exciting, in many ways like watching the England men. However down at our 5-aside pitches there are often women's matches on before our game and when I watch them it's great entertainment, some very talented players there. I suspect if the women's game were given more media attention and more people were encouraged to play it would be more exciting to follow - maybe shrinking their pitch by 10 yards would help as well, who knows, a woman's average height is proportionally that much shorter.. I didn't think athletics events were changed too much for women are they? They still run 100m and throw the same javelin and jump in the same sand pit don't they? I don't watch much athletics.
Seems to me if no women's Tour de France is sexist, so is no Leeds United ladies. I have no interest in watching cycling but I'd like women to be able to compete in a Tour de France if they wish.
There's a difference between an international body failing to represent cyclists regardless of sex and a bloke withdrawing his share of the funding used to support a team which travels under the same name as the team he owns and funds. Lufc ladies hasn't really been much to do with lufc for some time has it? They became Carnegie and were on the ropes again so the club stepped in and saved them (I think) and let them use the club's name. Now the club is stepping back - presumably the ladies team generates insufficient income to survive without outside support. Outside support has arrived again I believe. Non of this is sexist behaviour. I imagine C has pulled out of the work with the folk who sleep in the crypt. I expect he's also withdrawn from whatever Haigh was doing to champion gay rights. Both those decisions are arguably worse IMO. But in the real world fans, some on here, are complaining about ticket prices, the loss of subsidy in the club shop on Macron products for ST holders/members and so on. How, exactly, is C supposed to meet every requirement. When all comes to all what lufc ladies need (names irrelevant surely) is money on the gate.
I wish the ex lufc ladies well. I wish the folk at the crypt well and I look forward to seeing openly gay footballers in the game. I expect C feels just the same
When I was young I said to my mum, 'are the hills in the distance America?'
attacco decente
I think you are been petty accusing me of insulting people to get your argument across. All I basically said that if someone wants to sponsor they have the right to and I also believe they have the right to say no.
I didn't say that to get my argument across, I said it because I found that statement dismissive and insulting to me and to the women's team in general.
Well as its not my intention to insult anyone, I just wanted to make the point that everyone has the right to spend their own money how they see fit.
But as you are insulted I will leave the debate there and
Mellor wrote:
To answer your question - the pitch always looks too big with the result that the play seems laboured. This problem doesn't exist in cycling or athletics where the events are generally shortened or different. The lack of a women's Tour De France does seem sexist though I have to say.
I watch sport for the excitement. The ladies football I have seen, on telly, isn't. Juniors playing on full size pitches has the same effect. I'm no fan of swimming in general - men or women it's pretty boring for me. I'm selective. Simple as that.
By the way Beryl Burton, one of the finest cyclists ever, held the record for most miles travelled in 12 hours for a number of years. That's cycling for you. Bradford's finest.
No need for justifications, I don't think anyone thinks you a sexist just because you don't watch women's football, very few people do. I have only ever seen a few segments of matches on tv, England ladies national team, and it wasn't terribly exciting, in many ways like watching the England men. However down at our 5-aside pitches there are often women's matches on before our game and when I watch them it's great entertainment, some very talented players there. I suspect if the women's game were given more media attention and more people were encouraged to play it would be more exciting to follow - maybe shrinking their pitch by 10 yards would help as well, who knows, a woman's average height is proportionally that much shorter.. I didn't think athletics events were changed too much for women are they? They still run 100m and throw the same javelin and jump in the same sand pit don't they? I don't watch much athletics.
Seems to me if no women's Tour de France is sexist, so is no Leeds United ladies. I have no interest in watching cycling but I'd like women to be able to compete in a Tour de France if they wish.
There's a difference between an international body failing to represent cyclists regardless of sex and a bloke withdrawing his share of the funding used to support a team which travels under the same name as the team he owns and funds. Lufc ladies hasn't really been much to do with lufc for some time has it? They became Carnegie and were on the ropes again so the club stepped in and saved them (I think) and let them use the club's name. Now the club is stepping back - presumably the ladies team generates insufficient income to survive without outside support. Outside support has arrived again I believe. Non of this is sexist behaviour. I imagine C has pulled out of the work with the folk who sleep in the crypt. I expect he's also withdrawn from whatever Haigh was doing to champion gay rights. Both those decisions are arguably worse IMO. But
in the real world
fans, some on here, are complaining about ticket prices, the loss of subsidy in the club shop on Macron products for ST holders/members and so on. How, exactly, is C supposed to meet every requirement. When all comes to all what lufc ladies need (names irrelevant surely) is money on the gate.
I wish the ex lufc ladies well. I wish the folk at the crypt well and I look forward to seeing openly gay footballers in the game. I expect C feels just the same
Mellor wrote:
To answer your question - the pitch always looks too big with the result that the play seems laboured. This problem doesn't exist in cycling or athletics where the events are generally shortened or different. The lack of a women's Tour De France does seem sexist though I have to say.
I watch sport for the excitement. The ladies football I have seen, on telly, isn't. Juniors playing on full size pitches has the same effect. I'm no fan of swimming in general - men or women it's pretty boring for me. I'm selective. Simple as that.
By the way Beryl Burton, one of the finest cyclists ever, held the record for most miles travelled in 12 hours for a number of years. That's cycling for you. Bradford's finest.
No need for justifications, I don't think anyone thinks you a sexist just because you don't watch women's football, very few people do. I have only ever seen a few segments of matches on tv, England ladies national team, and it wasn't terribly exciting, in many ways like watching the England men. However down at our 5-aside pitches there are often women's matches on before our game and when I watch them it's great entertainment, some very talented players there. I suspect if the women's game were given more media attention and more people were encouraged to play it would be more exciting to follow - maybe shrinking their pitch by 10 yards would help as well, who knows, a woman's average height is proportionally that much shorter.. I didn't think athletics events were changed too much for women are they? They still run 100m and throw the same javelin and jump in the same sand pit don't they? I don't watch much athletics.
Seems to me if no women's Tour de France is sexist, so is no Leeds United ladies. I have no interest in watching cycling but I'd like women to be able to compete in a Tour de France if they wish.
Some great points there. It is not about whether one individual likes or doesn't like something, it is about the wider community which includes everyone in it. It is about equal and fair opportunity for all.
I personally would quite happily watch more women's sport if it were available to watch.
