Will our game on Sunday go ahead ?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

48 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Ive watched several of the women’s games in the World Cup and did in the euros . It’s got a lot better and is entertaining. I’m a football fan and an England fan so am definitely interested. 
 

However on Sunday from 12 I will be watching Norwich. I’m more of a Norwich fan than I am anything else. Same would apply with a minor England men’s game. Obviously if it was an important men’s game then there wouldn’t be a clash anyway. 

I'm with you Jim. Norwich would never come second to anything so I will be tuned in to to WC Final for the firs thalf. Good luck to them as individuals and a team. But its OTBC.

But I still wonder why they couldn't have moved our game back an hour.

[essex canary 517]

Sky Sports Football 2.30 pm Sunday, Union Berlin v Mainz. Perhaps a more invigorating watch than the should be bankrupt Toffees but...

[smooth 114]

 

 

I always am club before country, not even a debate. This club is involved in so many aspects of my community, access to training for all, access to football through reserve football (back in the day), the nest and helps contribute hugely to Norfolk.

I suppose I also suffer from what ifs with England, 1990 being the biggest one when I was 8. 

So I am delighted we are in the final, I love the development of the women's game but a Norwich win on Sunday will mean more for me in the immediate term. 

You could remember where you saw the win and the day, but I know I will have the emotional, soulful and more meaning in any Norwich result. A Norwich promotion season means more to me than an England (mens or womens) championship.

Edited August 18, 2023 by smooth
Wrong quote attached

[Matt Juler 184]

The big question now is surely whether the club will be showing the BBC or ITV coverage on their screens?

[Capt. Pants 4,336]

7 minutes ago, smooth said:

 

 

I always am club before country, not even a debate. This club is involved in so many aspects of my community, access to training for all, access to football through reserve football (back in the day), the nest and helps contribute hugely to Norfolk.

I suppose I also suffer from what ifs with England, 1990 being the biggest one when I was 8. 

So I am delighted we are in the final, I love the development of the women's game but a Norwich win on Sunday will mean more for me in the immediate term. 

You could remember where you saw the win and the day, but I know I will have the emotional, soulful and more meaning in any Norwich result. A Norwich promotion season means more to me than an England (mens or womens) championship.

Fine but you can have both, one is not exclusive to the other.

The sad thing is that Sky in many ways have made the choice for us. It's win win for people with a similar viewpoint to yourself and/or those who don't step foot in the stadium, but at certain times of the year it is Country over Club for me, and I'm sure Angus Gunn has exactly the same feeling when he plays for Scotland.

[nutty nigel 7,695]

36 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm with you Jim. Norwich would never come second to anything so I will be tuned in to to WC Final for the firs thalf. Good luck to them as individuals and a team. But its OTBC.

But I still wonder why they couldn't have moved our game back an hour.

So this really is an armchair issue and those with tickets for the game will have to tolerate any token gesture that Sky could make. If a sticking plaster solution is found it will not help most of the supporters going to the game to also watch the final. It will some but will just inconvenience others further. I guess the same applies to the other TV games. 

[canarydan23 4,156]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

So this really is an armchair issue

How is it?

[AJ 1,238]

For what it is worth Wagner just said he felt the game should have been moved

[nutty nigel 7,695]

12 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

How is it?

Because moving the game an hour will not help people going to the game to watch the final. I leave home at twenty past one to get to my seat about 15 mins before a 3 pm kick off. So for mid-day I'd leave at 20 past 10.

The game has already been moved for TV. Just move it back to 3pm on Saturday. But even that will inconvenience some ticket holders now. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by nutty nigel

[canarydan23 4,156]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Because moving the game an hour will not help people going to the game to watch the final. I leave home at twenty past one to get to my seat about 15 mins before a 3 pm kick off. So for mid-day I'd leave at 20 past 10.

The game has already been moved for TV. Just move it back to 3pm.in Saturday. But even that will inconvenience some ticket holders now. 

I get you, moving it an hour is an armchair issue. That makes sense.

The clash is anything but an armchair issue. Armchair fans can just load up two different screens and watch both from their normal seat.

My normal seat is in the River End, not an armchair. If I watch from their I'm forced to miss England in a World Cup final for the first time in my life, and probably the majority of people's lives.

It's ****ing ridiculous.

[nutty nigel 7,695]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

I get you, moving it an hour is an armchair issue. That makes sense.

The clash is anything but an armchair issue. Armchair fans can just load up two different screens and watch both from their normal seat.

My normal seat is in the River End, not an armchair. If I watch from their I'm forced to miss England in a World Cup final for the first time in my life, and probably the majority of people's lives.

It's ****ing ridiculous.

Perhaps I should have said any solution now is an armchair issue.

[dylanisabaddog 5,090]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

The women's game is growing and becoming much more popular. It deserves to be supported and encouraged.

As for the men's game subsidising the women's game, it'll have to get it's own house in order first... Have a look at the accounts.

That's the harsh reality. 

 

Sorry but the simple fact is that the male game pays for the women's game in this country.

That's absolutely fine for the big clubs for whom it's probably a drop in the ocean. 

One example is Fran Kirby of Chelsea who is paid £300k a year. That's significantly more than the total gate receipts for their ladies team for an entire season. 

Unfortunately there is no appetite from Sky or other TV channels to pay much, if anything, for ladies football and shirt sponsors obviously aren't interested. Sky turned down the opportunity to pay to show the World Cup and the BBC only paid when forced to by the Government.  That wasn't exclusive to England, the same applied in Germany as well.

That's not surprising because if England aren't playing the audience drops dramatically. When France played Argentina in the World Cup final I was as excited as an 11 year old. If we weren't playing Millwall I would almost certainly watch the final on Sunday. If it was Spain v Australia I would have no interest whatsoever. I'm not the only one. There is lots of chat on this site about the England team but little about any others.

So the simple question is, would you be happy for your season ticket money to be spent on paying a woman £300k a year to play in front of tiny crowds? Sorry, but I wouldn't. How much are you prepared to pay to promote the female game and what part of our club budget would you reduce in order to make ends meet? 

That's all before the equal pay brigade get their way. They've already won in America. Do you want Norwich City to pay a woman £20k a week?

I've been a bit disappointed with this thread. Anyone dubious about womens football has made intelligent fact based comment. The ignorant masses have screamed misogynist or gammon. Really? Please try to do better than that. 

At the moment I feel like the little boy in the crowd who shouted "look at the King, he's not wearing any clothes!" 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[canarydan23 4,156]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Perhaps I should have said any solution now is an armchair issue.

Moving the kick off to a time suitably different to the World Cup Final wouldn't be. Even if it's pushed back and rescheduled to another week. It would be a solution that allowed ticket-holding supporters to watch both their own team and one of English Football's most important matches ever.

But Sky have never given a **** about ticket-holding supporters. In fact, they're probably incentivised to make attending games ****ter so we have to stay home and rely on their dog**** service.

[nutty nigel 7,695]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Moving the kick off to a time suitably different to the World Cup Final wouldn't be. Even if it's pushed back and rescheduled to another week. It would be a solution that allowed ticket-holding supporters to watch both their own team and one of English Football's most important matches ever.

But Sky have never given a **** about ticket-holding supporters. In fact, they're probably incentivised to make attending games ****ter so we have to stay home and rely on their dog**** service.

As far as I can see...

Games shouldn't have been scheduled for Sunday.

Sky don't care about supporters who go to games.

A sticking plaster solution now would in most cases further inconvenience those fans who go to games.

But we should be grateful and doff our caps to Sky TV because they pay the bills...

[The Real Buh 3,496]

14 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but the simple fact is that the male game pays for the women's game in this country.

That's absolutely fine for the big clubs for whom it's probably a drop in the ocean. 

One example is Fran Kirby of Chelsea who is paid £300k a year. That's significantly more than the total gate receipts for their ladies team for an entire season. 

Unfortunately there is no appetite from Sky or other TV channels to pay much, if anything, for ladies football and shirt sponsors obviously aren't interested. Sky turned down the opportunity to pay to show the World Cup and the BBC only paid when forced to by the Government.  That wasn't exclusive to England, the same applied in Germany as well.

That's not surprising because if England aren't playing the audience drops dramatically. When France played Argentina in the World Cup final I was as excited as an 11 year old. If we weren't playing Millwall I would almost certainly watch the final on Sunday. If it was Spain v Australia I would have no interest whatsoever. I'm not the only one. There is lots of chat on this site about the England team but little about any others.

So the simple question is, would you be happy for your season ticket money to be spent on paying a woman £300k a year to play in front of tiny crowds? Sorry, but wouldn't. How much are you prepared to pay to promote the female game and what part of our club budget would you reduce in order to make ends meet? 

That's all before the equal pay brigade get their way. They've already won in America. Do you want Norwich City to pay a woman £20k a week?

I've been a bit disappointed with this thread. Anyone dubious about womens football has made intelligent fact based comment. The ignorant masses have screamed misogynist or gammon. Please try to do better than that. 

 

 

Cope

[Matt Juler 184]

The teams should agree to effectively not play the first half, just kick off and leave the ball in the centre circle.  They go back to the changing room, we all watch the match on the big screen.

[canarydan23 4,156]

3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but the simple fact is that the male game pays for the women's game in this country.

That's absolutely fine for the big clubs for whom it's probably a drop in the ocean. 

One example is Fran Kirby of Chelsea who is paid £300k a year. That's significantly more than the total gate receipts for their ladies team for an entire season. 

Unfortunately there is no appetite from Sky or other TV channels to pay much, if anything, for ladies football and shirt sponsors obviously aren't interested. Sky turned down the opportunity to pay to show the World Cup and the BBC only paid when forced to by the Government.  That wasn't exclusive to England, the same applied in Germany as well.

That's not surprising because if England aren't playing the audience drops dramatically. When France played Argentina in the World Cup final I was as excited as an 11 year old. If we weren't playing Millwall I would almost certainly watch the final on Sunday. If it was Spain v Australia I would have no interest whatsoever. I'm not the only one. There is lots of chat on this site about the England team but little about any others.

So the simple question is, would you be happy for your season ticket money to be spent on paying a woman £300k a year to play in front of tiny crowds? Sorry, but I wouldn't. How much are you prepared to pay to promote the female game and what part of our club budget would you reduce in order to make ends meet? 

That's all before the equal pay brigade get their way. They've already won in America. Do you want Norwich City to pay a woman £20k a week?

I've been a bit disappointed with this thread. Anyone dubious about womens football has made intelligent fact based comment. The ignorant masses have screamed misogynist or gammon. Really? Please try to do better than that. 

Honestly, you need to stop talking about this now. Most of what you're saying is nonsense.

The WSL is in it's final year of a contract with Sky that is worth £8 million a season. How much do you think the next TV rights deal will be? Wouldn't be surprised if it's double the existing.

ITV have joint rights for the World Cup, are you claiming the government forced them to broadcast it?! Between them, they paid over £9 million for the TV rights. The government did not force them, they just came out and publicly encouraged all parties to reach an agreement so the public could watch for fee. Why do you think they did that? They don't do it for the Tiddlywinks World Cup. It's because the voting public would have been up in arms if they were unable to watch it. Because, as hard as it appears to be for people like you to accept, enough people care about women's football for it to attract government intervention. That's pretty huge.

Intelligent, fact-based comments? Like your one about Chelsea's total attendance for the season being considerably lower than one single game? And as far as I am aware, no one has screamed gammon at all. Someone posted a link to a national advertising campaign from a gambling company that featured the word gammon. Again, ask yourself why some very well paid marketing guru came up with such an advert, and why do you think it's attracted 1 million views on Twitter alone?

[Canary73 170]

For me it’s odd that Sky have picked this out to be televised. It’s not really a great weekend of standout fixtures. The only other one that catches the eye is Plymouth Argyle v So’ton and that’s already being televised with a 1230 kick off on Saturday. Sky don’t give a rats about any clashes which is why they put it there. I doubt anyone outside the fans of the two clubs will be watching it.

[BroadstairsR 2,239]

5 minutes ago, Canary73 said:

For me it’s odd that Sky have picked this out to be televised. It’s not really a great weekend of standout fixtures. The only other one that catches the eye is Plymouth Argyle v So’ton and that’s already being televised with a 1230 kick off on Saturday. Sky don’t give a rats about any clashes which is why they put it there. I doubt anyone outside the fans of the two clubs will be watching it.

Half the population of Ipswich will watch it too. They are usually well versed in everything Norwich, especially TV games.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,899]

6 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Half the population of Ipswich will watch it too. They are usually well versed in everything Norwich, especially TV games.

And boy is it great knowing they're watching a Norfolk girl who's a through and through Norwich fan scoring for England

[ron obvious 1,519]

Well I've just watched the highlights of the England vs. Australia match, on the grounds that it's come on in 'leaps & bounds'

It was slightly improved over what I've seen before; I suppose they might give a team of 15 year old boys a bit of a game. I'd still back any half decent boys team though.

Since the gap between 15 year old boys football & NCFC's level contains a myriad of better leagues then I can't see why I'd want to watch the lowest level. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

All the things that make football exciting are missing. Women just aren't very good at football on any comparative level of speed, strength or skill when under pressure. To assert otherwise flies in the face of observation. But that seems to be the way the world is at the moment.

[Capt. Pants 4,336]

4 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Well I've just watched the highlights of the England vs. Australia match, on the grounds that it's come on in 'leaps & bounds'

It was slightly improved over what I've seen before; I suppose they might give a team of 15 year old boys a bit of a game. I'd still back any half decent boys team though.

Since the gap between 15 year old boys football & NCFC's level contains a myriad of better leagues then I can't see why I'd want to watch the lowest level. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

All the things that make football exciting are missing. Women just aren't very good at football on any comparative level of speed, strength or skill when under pressure. To assert otherwise flies in the face of observation. But that seems to be the way the world is at the moment.

As I say it's win win for you then. Congratulations.

It would be nice if ticket holding Norwich had a choice.

Victory for the TV supporter!

 

[The Real Buh 3,496]

6 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Well I've just watched the highlights of the England vs. Australia match, on the grounds that it's come on in 'leaps & bounds'

It was slightly improved over what I've seen before; I suppose they might give a team of 15 year old boys a bit of a game. I'd still back any half decent boys team though.

Since the gap between 15 year old boys football & NCFC's level contains a myriad of better leagues then I can't see why I'd want to watch the lowest level. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

All the things that make football exciting are missing. Women just aren't very good at football on any comparative level of speed, strength or skill when under pressure. To assert otherwise flies in the face of observation. But that seems to be the way the world is at the moment.

Found the virgin 

[Capt. Pants 4,336]

6 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Well I've just watched the highlights of the England vs. Australia match, on the grounds that it's come on in 'leaps & bounds'

It was slightly improved over what I've seen before; I suppose they might give a team of 15 year old boys a bit of a game. I'd still back any half decent boys team though.

Since the gap between 15 year old boys football & NCFC's level contains a myriad of better leagues then I can't see why I'd want to watch the lowest level. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

All the things that make football exciting are missing. Women just aren't very good at football on any comparative level of speed, strength or skill when under pressure. To assert otherwise flies in the face of observation. But that seems to be the way the world is at the moment.

As I say it's win win for you then. Congratulations.

It would be nice if ticket holding Norwich had a choice.

Victory for the TV supporter!

 

[essex canary 517]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

So the simple question is, would you be happy for your season ticket money to be spent on paying a woman £300k a year to play 

  Do you want Norwich City to pay a woman £20k a week?

 

 

 

Apparently we pay one around £700k a year or £14k a week. No kicking a ball is involved and we aren't remotely as wealthy as Chelsea.

[nutty nigel 7,695]

Just now, essex canary said:

Apparently we pay one around £700k a year or £14k a week. No kicking a ball is involved and we aren't remotely as wealthy as Chelsea.

But you don't pay for your season ticket..

[essex canary 517]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

But you don't pay for your season ticket..

They could announce a shareholder dividend.

[Jim Smith 2,366]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Because moving the game an hour will not help people going to the game to watch the final. I leave home at twenty past one to get to my seat about 15 mins before a 3 pm kick off. So for mid-day I'd leave at 20 past 10.

The game has already been moved for TV. Just move it back to 3pm on Saturday. But even that will inconvenience some ticket holders now. 

Not really just get into or close to the ground for 11 and watch the game then go to your seat and watch the norwich game 

[nutty nigel 7,695]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Not really just get into or close to the ground for 11 and watch the game then go to your seat and watch the norwich game 

The game kicks off at 12. I leave home at 10:20. How does that work for me?

I thought you were a season ticket holder? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So this really is an armchair issue and those with tickets for the game will have to tolerate any token gesture that Sky could make. If a sticking plaster solution is found it will not help most of the supporters going to the game to also watch the final. It will some but will just inconvenience others further. I guess the same applies to the other TV games. 

No compromise then?

And NCFC is no longer just about those who go to games at Carrow Road. I would wager there are more ex pats than the 25000 who go to home games around the UK and no doubt rest of the world who tune in to watch. Whether anyone likes it or not, the club joined the rest and sold their souls to TV.