Super Rugby Women's Competition
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones I don't see it as hating on men.
It clearly is. A false statement that makes no sense. What other purpose does it serve?
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones I don't see it as hating on men.
It clearlyI think it is. A false statement that makes no sense IMO. What other purpose does it serve?FIFY
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones I don't see it as hating on men.
It clearlyI think it is. A false statement that makes no sense IMO. What other purpose does it serve?FIFY
How does it make sense?
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I made the mistake of reading a sumo tweet and that was in replies. Gobsmacking ignorance and misandry.
Perhaps Nicola is ignorant to the history of the game. Perhaps she can explain where this bag of money will come from.
No doubt the next claim will be for pay parity. 🙄
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I made the mistake of reading a sumo tweet and that was in replies. Gobsmacking ignorance and misandry.
Perhaps Nicola is ignorant to the history of the game. Perhaps she can explain where this bag of money will come from.
No doubt the next claim will be for pay parity. 🙄
Careful of hating on Nicola ... she might be reading this and about to cone and whoop yo ass ...
I understand she lurks on TSF.
-
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo as long as she's not a prize winning author.
Edit: and to be clear, the original comment was more tongue and cheek, but hey, it does seem a bit out of touch, she needs to get that debate on here, not twitter.
Umm .. ahh .. err ...
-
@booboo said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo as long as she's not a prize winning author.
Edit: and to be clear, the original comment was more tongue and cheek, but hey, it does seem a bit out of touch, she needs to get that debate on here, not twitter.
Umm .. ahh .. err ...
What's up? Is it tongue versing cheek? I can never remember, I saw it on TB ages ago.
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo as long as she's not a prize winning author.
Edit: and to be clear, the original comment was more tongue and cheek, but hey, it does seem a bit out of touch, she needs to get that debate on here, not twitter.
Umm .. ahh .. err ...
What's up? Is it tongue versing cheek? I can never remember, I saw it on TB ages ago.
Well I'm bias ...
-
@booboo said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I made the mistake of reading a sumo tweet and that was in replies. Gobsmacking ignorance and misandry.
Perhaps Nicola is ignorant to the history of the game. Perhaps she can explain where this bag of money will come from.
No doubt the next claim will be for pay parity. 🙄
Careful of hating on Nicola ... she might be reading this and about to cone and whoop yo ass ...
I understand she lurks on TSF.
If she does it’ll be just like the time that 1991 AB jumped on the fern to defend himself from internet tough guys.
Anyone got some popcorn ?
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@stargazer say what? "How many guys" etc etc. What do "guys" have to do with it? Not taking into account that the answer is fucking thousands would and thousands have.
It's a point of comparison. When trying to argue a position it gives you something to base your argument on.
No one disagrees that at a high level of the game male players should get payed. The question is why it is different for female players.
There are some potentially valid arguments around monetary inputs/outputs so focus on those instead of making accusations of man bashing.
-
I guess that makes the US cash injection from Silver Lake a done deal?
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I guess that makes the US cash injection from Silver Lake a done deal?
Or there is some chicken counting going on.
-
Not going to dox the user above, but holy shit I'm looking forward to her reply.
As for the topic, happy for women to paid for playing rugby. But considering it took men until 1995 to get paid after playing the best part of a century, making it a men vs woman argument is a bit inaccurate.
As everything is a product these days, perhaps it's best to seperate out the two products and pay the women out of the purse for TV rights for womens rugby and bums in seats? If it's popular then it will fund itself.
-
@kirwan or you could look at it this way.
The NZRU are in the business of selling products. At the moment they are at the limit of getting material to make those products. Also their customer demographic has stayed the same for years.
Now wouldn’t it make business sense to grow by making new products? Sure you may have to invest in some R&D but the product quality will improve at the same time.
Only at that point do you see whether the new product has a sustainable market.
Or you could stick with your maxed out production line and wonder why income and markets aren’t growing.
That argument about waiting as long as the men’s game did is plain stupid. -
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
Not going to dox the user above, but holy shit I'm looking forward to her reply.
This.
It'll be interesting to watch how increasing professionalism changes the women's game. The last NPC game I saw live of the Volcanix in a good way reminded me of the final years of men's amateur rugby and the first couple of years of Super 12 - i.e. you could almost instantly tell the position a player played by their height, size, or speed.
-
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@kirwan or you could look at it this way.
The NZRU are in the business of selling products. At the moment they are at the limit of getting material to make those products. Also their customer demographic has stayed the same for years.
Now wouldn’t it make business sense to grow by making new products? Sure you may have to invest in some R&D but the product quality will improve at the same time.
Only at that point do you see whether the new product has a sustainable market.
Or you could stick with your maxed out production line and wonder why income and markets aren’t growing.
That argument about waiting as long as the men’s game did is plain stupid.I mentioned the 1995 men thing because for decades men did play for free.
On the back of the worst year in professional finances, expanding your costs for an unproven product is what's stupid. If it's well supported, particularly on TV, then it's a safer bet.
I suspect the viewing figures will be pretty poor however.
I'd start by paying the woman sevens team, as that's an Olympic requirement anyway. And build from there.
