We like to pat ourselves on the back a lot...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

For being a progressive football club, some even like to revel in our club being a bit left wing.

We're very 'The Guardian' should we say, we're proud to be inclusive, we like our status as a nice community club, we've got The Nest coming, we even fly a Justin Fashanu banner with gay pride colours. We congratulate ourselves on not participating in the grotesque uber-capitalist system of football throwing money at greedy agents and overpaying journeymen, instead we celebrate our commitment to bringing through our own. 

But is there an elephant in the room here? 

Why are Norwich City Ladies FC, who are the officially affiliated ladies team, languishing in the fourth step of the pyramid in a minor regional league? 4 or possibly 5 promotions away from the top tier. 

And why don't we hear any stories of our players going to support them at their games, like Vincent Kompany used to do frequently at Man City?

When we do a kit launch, why don't we have a member of the ladies team modelling the kit alongside the men's players? They wear the same kit after all. 

Clubs with officially affiliated ladies teams in the third level (above us) include MK Dons, Oxford United, Gillingham, and Yeovil Town. 

Norwich City ladies compete in a lowly regional league, their league fixtures this season include games against Billericay Town, Enfield Town, AFC Basildon, and Cambridge City. 

Can we really pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on being a groundbreaking and progressive club when in all honesty I think female footballers or just females in general could claim that we've done a lot less than most professional clubs when it comes to trying and promote the growth and development of the women's game. 

With us set to receive £100m in TV revenue this season, and looking set to make a huge profit, is this the missing piece of the puzzle? Norwich having a competitive women's team with a genuine and meaningful affiliation with the men's side past us giving them some kits each year?

It's great seeing the men's team do well in recent years, but with the women's game growing in this country is it time we invested? Wouldn't we need a thriving ladies team to truly consider ourselves an inclusive community club? 

Edited February 22, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[not a clue 21]

Fair point, well made🙄

[Kingston Yellow 259]

Snowflake 

[FenwayFrank 2,717]

At what time does their manager make his substitutions? Could make all the difference.

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

For being a progressive football club, some even like to revel in our club being a bit left wing.

We're very 'The Guardian' should we say, we're proud to be inclusive, we like our status as a nice community club, we've got The Nest coming, we even fly a Justin Fashanu banner with gay pride colours. We congratulate ourselves on not participating in the grotesque uber-capitalist system of football throwing money at greedy agents and overpaying journeymen, instead we celebrate our commitment to bringing through our own. 

But is there an elephant in the room here? 

Why are Norwich City Ladies FC, who are the officially affiliated ladies team, languishing in the fourth step of the pyramid in a minor regional league? 4 or possibly 5 promotions away from the top tier. 

And why don't we hear any stories of our players going to support them at their games, like Vincent Kompany used to do frequently at Man City?

When we do a kit launch, why don't we have a member of the ladies team modelling the kit alongside the men's players? They wear the same kit after all. 

Clubs with officially affiliated ladies teams in the third level (above us) include MK Dons, Oxford United, Gillingham, and Yeovil Town. 

Norwich City ladies compete in a lowly regional league, their league fixtures this season include games against Billericay Town, Enfield Town, AFC Basildon, and Cambridge City. 

Can we really pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on being a groundbreaking and progressive club when in all honesty I think female footballers or just females in general could claim that we've done a lot less than most professional clubs when it comes to trying and promote the growth and development of the women's game. 

With us set to receive £100m in TV revenue this season, and looking set to make a huge profit, is this the missing piece of the puzzle? Norwich having a competitive women's team with a genuine and meaningful affiliation with the men's side past us giving them some kids each year?

It's great seeing the men's team do well in recent years, but with the women's game growing in this country is it time we invested? Wouldn't we need a thriving ladies team to truly consider ourselves an inclusive community club? 

Firstly, sincere congratulations on finding a never-before used angle of attack on the club! Big Vince, Keith Scott, Highland Canary et al will be kicking themselves for not having had the idea.

Secondly, all I know about women's professional football, and that is not much, although I have seen one match, comes from listening to the extensive coverage on the Guardian Football Weekly (actually bi-weekly) podcast. And one of the frequent points is that even some of the clubs that have a team in the top flight do not support them that generously and, for example, often force them to play their 'home' games at grotty grounds with lousy pitches. So I am not sure it is true that we have done a lot less than most.

I don't know what it would cost to properly bankroll a Norwich City women's team but my suspicion, given that even much wealthier clubs are not doing all they could, is that we would find it too much of a financial stretch at the moment.

But that is not to say we shouldn't do better than we are. The obvious first step for you is to raise this at a fans' forum or contact the club directly.

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035]

...the real 'elephant in rhe room' is that nobody really cares about womens football...

[Herman 11,136]

Sometime in the future.

City start spending more money on the ladies team.

TVB is the first on the Pink Un complaining about City spending more money on the ladies team.

[sgncfc 1,330]

1 hour ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...the real 'elephant in rhe room' is that nobody really cares about womens football...

Brave man.

[Tired 112]

2 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...the real 'elephant in rhe room' is that nobody really cares about womens football...

A lot of people do care though

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Firstly, sincere congratulations on finding a never-before used angle of attack on the club!

Congratulations on deploying a very predictable means of trying to suppress a debate, by accusing me of attacking something or someone, immediately inventing a 'victim' and expressing outraged on their behalf - I'm sure 'the club' is absolutely fine with this debate; and using the word 'attack' is an insult both to me and to those who are actually attacked with words online, like.. dare I say... Norfolk's own Caroline Flack. I nevertheless accept your congratulations for starting an interesting thread, thank you. 

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know what it would cost to properly bankroll a Norwich City women's team but my suspicion, given that even much wealthier clubs are not doing all they could, is that we would find it too much of a financial stretch at the moment.

I know that you are an accountant or similar, but I never directly suggested that we should 'bankroll' them, although I suspect that allocating resources of some sort would to some extent be part of what I envisage. I was thinking more a small amount of subsidisation and utilising some of our existing infrastructure to give them a leg up, which is a long way from being what you term 'bankroll'.

Perhaps using our huge profile to help build their support base would be a good start, and that could include things like making it possible to purchase tickets to their games via the clubs ticketing system, sharing updates and results via the clubs large social media profiles, and using some of the female players in our promotional materials - e.g. our annual kit launches. 

At the moment our support/affiliation seems very limited. In fact, we've done much more to promote the Tampa Bay Rowdies! 

Edited February 22, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

3 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...the real 'elephant in rhe room' is that nobody really cares about womens football...

Participation in women's football in the UK has grown substantially in recent years, as have attendances at games, in fact the UK is bucking the trend here as in some other European countries (including Germany) support has declined. 

[Branston Pickle 4,149]

The women’s game is rightly getting a lot more coverage but, as with rugby and cricket, it will probably continue to struggle a bit against the ‘noisy neighbour’ that is the men’s game which is obviously more established and that bit harder/faster/quicker.  There are occasional big games/attendances but Chelsea, for example, who are second in the PL, play most of their games at Kingsmeadow in front of a couple of thousand (1900 v Brum recently; 3300 v West Ham) - decent figures for most sports but I imagine it’s difficult to run a fully professional football club on those figures without backing from above.

I don’t know the specific ins and outs of Chelsea, but I believe the Chelsea Women’s team is fully affiliated to the overall club, and marketed as such - through the same website etc, which must be of help.  The ground is also theirs, Chelsea fc bought it off AFC Wimbledon a while back (which in turn booted Kingstonian out of what had previously been their own ground).  

It would be great if NCFC could have really close ties with their ‘affiliates’ - I think the links are there and pretty good, but could be stronger.  The binners are running away with their league and we certainly don’t want them to be better than us, do we?!

[Mason 47 1,924]

If Norwich City put the necessary time and energy into properly backing the womens side, the team would probably get to the very bottom rung of the ladder if they were lucky.

Most womens teams outside of the money sides rely on regional recruitment in what isn't quite as popular a thing as the media swell would have you believe (and the quality just isn't great). Unless we have that spare cash just lying around, I think when it comes down to it most would rather have a few million put into our first team that properly building a W team- even if they wouldn't like to say.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

44 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

If Norwich City put the necessary time and energy into properly backing the womens side, the team would probably get to the very bottom rung of the ladder if they were lucky.

Most womens teams outside of the money sides rely on regional recruitment in what isn't quite as popular a thing as the media swell would have you believe (and the quality just isn't great). Unless we have that spare cash just lying around, I think when it comes down to it most would rather have a few million put into our first team that properly building a W team- even if they wouldn't like to say.

 

But Durham have a team in the second tier, who is bankrolling them? 

Ipswich are about to get promoted, we are near the bottom of the league. 

I don't like the idea of the scum having a team above ours! 

I'm not saying we should bankroll a pro team and buy players from Lyon like Man City. 

But our ladies team is essentially the male equivalent of a non-league side. The women's Championship would be nice, which I'm guessing is semi pro. But even the third tier would be better than being the equal of Billericay and Enfield! 

Surely that doesn't require millions! 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035]

6 hours ago, Tired said:

A lot of people do care though

define "a lot" ?....

[JF 694]

Ignoring the obvious sarcasm from some posters that would rather play the poster than have a sensible conversation on the subject then to be fair to the OP, if we pride ourselves on being a community club, which we do, then yes there should be more attention given to supporting the growth of our Women’s team. The Women’s game has taken off and although it clearly will never get anywhere near the level of the men’s game, that doesn’t mean it still can’t become a popular and meaningful sport in its own right. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

But Durham have a team in the second tier, who is bankrolling them? 

Ipswich are about to get promoted, we are near the bottom of the league. 

I don't like the idea of the scum having a team above ours! 

I'm not saying we should bankroll a pro team and buy players from Lyon like Man City. 

But our ladies team is essentially the male equivalent of a non-league side. The women's Championship would be nice, which I'm guessing is semi pro. But even the third tier would be better than being the equal of Billericay and Enfield! 

Surely that doesn't require millions! 

We don’t bankroll the men’s team so the women would have no chance here. 

[Hillhead 114]

1 hour ago, JF said:

Ignoring the obvious sarcasm from some posters that would rather play the poster than have a sensible conversation on the subject then to be fair to the OP.

They are reacting to the choice of topic title I think. 
 

While minimal, the majority of woman’s football teams lose money and I wouldn’t want to see Norwich, with far more limited resources (especially when you factor in we will surely be back in the championship next season) commit money to this at this time. The solution would be to run the team break even but would this not be what they are doing now?

I’m also not sure how the set up works, when the championship was formed last season there was an application process, did we apply?

the suggestions of trying to raise the profile by including the female players on kit launches etc, are quite agreeable and something I’d like to see.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Hillhead

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035]

...surely if the womens game had sufficient popularity and sustainability clubs wouldnt have to be affiliated to , or piggybacking  a mens professional club in the first place and would exist in their own right?

...simple fact of the matter is , a 4 yearly international world cup ...and the odd high profile club game aside, the attendances the sport attracts doesnt make running and funding a professional team viable, certainly not for a club of our size.

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

8 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Congratulations on deploying a very predictable means of trying to suppress a debate, by accusing me of attacking something or someone, immediately inventing a 'victim' and expressing outraged on their behalf - I'm sure 'the club' is absolutely fine with this debate; and using the word 'attack' is an insult both to me and to those who are actually attacked with words online, like.. dare I say... Norfolk's own Caroline Flack. I nevertheless accept your congratulations for starting an interesting thread, thank you. 

I know that you are an accountant or similar, but I never directly suggested that we should 'bankroll' them, although I suspect that allocating resources of some sort would to some extent be part of what I envisage. I was thinking more a small amount of subsidisation and utilising some of our existing infrastructure to give them a leg up, which is a long way from being what you term 'bankroll'.

Perhaps using our huge profile to help build their support base would be a good start, and that could include things like making it possible to purchase tickets to their games via the clubs ticketing system, sharing updates and results via the clubs large social media profiles, and using some of the female players in our promotional materials - e.g. our annual kit launches. 

At the moment our support/affiliation seems very limited. In fact, we've done much more to promote the Tampa Bay Rowdies! 

Dear me! I am the last person to try to suppress debate. The start was sarcastic but the rest of the post was serious. Finally, a friendly warning - if you ever again accuse me of having been an accountant🤓 or such like you will find yourself immediately sued for libel...

[ec-p 117]

One of our own Lauren Hemp, plays for Man City women’s team. 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Women's football is making progress.Good luck to them. But it has to be evolution. It seems to me that much of life demands that things must be instant. Tolerance is one thing but support is another step.

And there is only so much to go around. If things get spread to thinly then nobody gains. I don't know anything about the Norwich Ladies Team, but the debate could expand into "why are they defined as a Ladies Team and not gender neutral as the men's team aren't gender defined".

Fact is, things are what they are and in terms of entertainment, the women's game at the level I have witnessed does not entertain me.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,789]

My daughter played for Ipswich Town Ladies . There , I’ve said it . Miss Beard went through the ITFC player development centre until the FA withdrew their “academy” licence. NCFC kept theirs. Whilst she had an offer to join NCFC she spent a year with Arsenal under 17’s . But I digress. 
 

The amount of money required to place a ladies team into a competitive position was negligible . A whole season could cost as little as £10k - to pay travelling and kit costs. When Miss Beard played for ITFC they bought their own kit. 
 

Neither ITFC of NCFC Put any money into the ladies team. I’m talking up to 5 years ago.

iTFC now have an FA affiliation system again and a tie into a further education set up. I still doubt that ITFC put much money in but this is miles better than NCFC. ITFC area about to be promoted to the third tier and got to the fifth round of the FA cup. I suspect the extra money that this has taken is very small indeed . Their players will not be professional by any means but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them getting some benefits 
 

The theme of the OP is worth debate (aside from the Neanderthals) and Norwich’s league position would be greatly improved by a relatively minor cash injection. Whilst Geography doesn’t help of course, the Binners attracted a few reasonable players from Lowestoft when they folded which tells you something .

 

 
 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Graham Paddons Beard

[Jim Smith 2,610]

I have to say I wouldn’t want resources that could go to the first team spent on it but I do agree it’s a bit strange that the women’s team seems to get no support from the club at all. As far as I’m aware it’s almost completely separate.

mind you the CSF is “self funding” as well. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

On 21/02/2020 at 20:03, TeemuVanBasten said:

For being a progressive football club, some even like to revel in our club being a bit left wing.

We're very 'The Guardian' should we say, we're proud to be inclusive, we like our status as a nice community club, we've got The Nest coming, we even fly a Justin Fashanu banner with gay pride colours. We congratulate ourselves on not participating in the grotesque uber-capitalist system of football throwing money at greedy agents and overpaying journeymen, instead we celebrate our commitment to bringing through our own. 

But is there an elephant in the room here? 

Why are Norwich City Ladies FC, who are the officially affiliated ladies team, languishing in the fourth step of the pyramid in a minor regional league? 4 or possibly 5 promotions away from the top tier. 

And why don't we hear any stories of our players going to support them at their games, like Vincent Kompany used to do frequently at Man City?

When we do a kit launch, why don't we have a member of the ladies team modelling the kit alongside the men's players? They wear the same kit after all. 

Clubs with officially affiliated ladies teams in the third level (above us) include MK Dons, Oxford United, Gillingham, and Yeovil Town. 

Norwich City ladies compete in a lowly regional league, their league fixtures this season include games against Billericay Town, Enfield Town, AFC Basildon, and Cambridge City. 

Can we really pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on being a groundbreaking and progressive club when in all honesty I think female footballers or just females in general could claim that we've done a lot less than most professional clubs when it comes to trying and promote the growth and development of the women's game. 

With us set to receive £100m in TV revenue this season, and looking set to make a huge profit, is this the missing piece of the puzzle? Norwich having a competitive women's team with a genuine and meaningful affiliation with the men's side past us giving them some kits each year?

It's great seeing the men's team do well in recent years, but with the women's game growing in this country is it time we invested? Wouldn't we need a thriving ladies team to truly consider ourselves an inclusive community club? 

I've gone from being concerned that we aren't trying to lift our ladies team, to being concerned that we have executives who think that accepting sponsorship from a betting company which is reminiscent of the Daily Sport in 1995 is an acceptable image. 

I think serious questions need to be asked. Is this a club for middle aged men who loved lad culture but who haven't seen their penis for 15 years because its stuck under their beer bellys, but still like ogling semi naked teenage girls as they've got nothing better to do since their wife left them in 2008.

Or are we an inclusive and progressive community club, who values those who take their daughters to games as much as those who take their sons? 

I bought both of my daughters Norwich shirts with their names on the back last season. Won't be doing that again. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

Never thought I would agree with necrobumping but good find, good on you

Edited June 7, 2021 by cambridgeshire canary

[glory.win or die. 273]

On 22/02/2020 at 07:29, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

define "a lot" ?....

1.1 billion watched the last woman's world cup.

I'd define a billion as alot 

[Wrathofthefarkely 54]

If people gave a stuff about women's football it would be different. 

People meaning women. 

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

Women's football has a lot of ground to make up and I'm pleased with the BBC giving it more coverage. That said, I have often refereed girls' matches over the last couple of years as a good friend of mine coaches a team at an all girls' football club up here. I'm quite impressed with how well some of them can play, although as you'd expect, the quality of players within teams is really very variable indeed so whilst there is a lot of poor play, there is some talent knocking around and anything that gets girls interested in the sport is well worth looking at in my book.

That said, the FA of the time did cut noses off to spite faces when D-i-c-k, Kerr Ladies were very popular. That's really pushed everything back for several generations, and it's going to take a long time before we'll start seeing widespread professionalism amongst the ladies, if at all.

As for Norwich, it does look like they've started making some moves in that direction, hence social media coverage/footage of their Norfolk Country FA Cup win against Mulbarton in the final. Wouldn't mind seeing more of that.

Edited June 7, 2021 by TheGunnShow
Right, that censor is hacking me off.... ;)

[Chelm Canary 404]

Women's football isn't as fast paced or interesting.

If it was there would be more interest.

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Chelm Canary