Who are you watching as priority?
-
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean maybe that is one for the politics thread or elsewhere.
No, it goes directly to support.
This discussion is about whether the women’s game brings value to the NZRU.
Which in the final analysis is financial.
I think you may need to widen your view on how sponsorship works these days. Do any of us give a shit about Altrad? I doubt it. At least not to any extent of direct effect. The same situation applies with the women’s game. Call it virtue signalling if you will but major sponsors want their name associated with the women’s game, not because of viewership but because of association and active support.
So you agree sponsors of the women's game aren't expecting to see a return, it's all about ESG.
NZRPA have done the maths and suggest that the idea that the men’s game supports the women’s is a fallacy. Major funding that supports the men’s game is dependent on a functioning women’s game.
If that were the case, it would be self sufficient in terms of funding. Is it?
-
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends. Whatever the motivations for that income it still exists.
Sponsors take into account direct and indirect benefits from their spends. It isn’t always direct and if a BCR pans out to their advantage then they will invest. -
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
It's professional sport. Finances matter.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.
Show me the data.
-
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
It's professional sport. Finances matter.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.
Show me the data.
We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.
-
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
It's professional sport. Finances matter.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.
Show me the data.
We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.
The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.
Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Stargazer said in Who are you watching as priority?:
I read the question wrong and picked BFs.
If both games were on Sky, I'd indeed watch the BFs live because it's a World Cup QF and the ABs game is just a meaningless money grab. But I don't have Spark Sport, so I'll watch the ABs live and the replay of the BFs game on TV3.
We are growing the game….
I think it’s a good fixture heading into a northern tour.
I agree it's not a meaningless fixture at all, Japan just hosted a RWC and there's plenty of interest in the game over there, I think playing them more often is a great thing to do.
-
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@booboo said in Who are you watching as priority?:
Currently 71% to 18% ..
FYI... interview with Louusa Wall ..
7:15 am Thursday from 3:13 in.
You 71% "are out of line in New Zealand .." according to Wall.
Also ..
"The public [are wanting the Black Ferns to be the priority]"
...and it was an intentional decision by NZR...
Hosking's comment that the ABs are understandably the priority is correct as the money they generate funds all the levels below. Including the BFs.
So accept that that the blokes are subsidising you, or get paid less.
Not necessarily the case. As NZRPA rightly point out, the women’s game has huge value to sponsors. They actively encourage the growth.
The concept that it is solely eyes on the tv that generates cash is incorrect.If there isn't viewership, then it isn't sponsorship, it's charity. Women don't support women's sports like men support sports.
Good old Bill sure tells it like it is.
As has probably been evident from the ( lack of ) quality of my sports analysis on here I don’t have the time or inclination to watch a hell of a lot of sport these days compared to my early 20s ( Yet paradoxically enough I still stick around on a Rugby forum )
Woman’s Rugby is VERY far down the list of stuff to watch. If a person wants to watch, support etc then they can fill their boots but it’s just not for me. Just a slower, weaker, less skilled and less athletic version of the male game. That’s how it is to me and lots of others.
-
I've seen AFLW live. It's definitely a worse product than women's rugby or league. To me it suffers where bball also suffers, in that the women don't have the same physical attributes to play in the air. So while in rugby a slightly slower step or swerve can best a slightly slower defender amd it still looks cool, in aerial games you're actually removing a significant part of the game. Amazing marks, guys leaping for blocks or dunks etc.
Edit - other than this woman of course:
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Stargazer said in Who are you watching as priority?:
I read the question wrong and picked BFs.
If both games were on Sky, I'd indeed watch the BFs live because it's a World Cup QF and the ABs game is just a meaningless money grab. But I don't have Spark Sport, so I'll watch the ABs live and the replay of the BFs game on TV3.
We are growing the game….
I think it’s a good fixture heading into a northern tour.
ne too. we (and every other top side) should play more nations of this level rather than just big money fixtures.
-
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
It's professional sport. Finances matter.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.
Show me the data.
We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.
The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.
Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.
"Warm and Fuzzies" and "Financial Return" are not mutually exclusive.
-
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:
Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.
Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,
I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .
There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.
Case in point:
- Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
- Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
- Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.
my view is that the AFL size field is just too big for the women. They aren't quick enough, nor can they kick far enough. Make the field smaller and i think the game gets better
There are some great female athletes playing. But not enough, and even then...
i still fucking love Orla O'Dwyer though
-
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
It's professional sport. Finances matter.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.
Show me the data.
We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.
The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.
Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.
"Warm and Fuzzies" and "Financial Return" are not mutually exclusive.
Sure, profits give me warm and fuzzies.
-
@mariner4life they have two less players on the field than the men. I never quite got that because the so called justification for it -“open the game up” doesn’t stack up. There’s also the “we want to be unique to the men” angle that I’ve heard a few times.
Get 18 on the field, do the 6-6-6 thing and the game will be better just from that.
-
@mariner4life said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:
Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.
Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,
I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .
There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.
Case in point:
- Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
- Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
- Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.
my view is that the AFL size field is just too big for the women. They aren't quick enough, nor can they kick far enough. Make the field smaller and i think the game gets better
There are some great female athletes playing. But not enough, and even then...
i still fucking love Orla O'Dwyer though
I watch richmond a bit but havent seen all the teams, but they do have a little midfielder monique conti who is a great little player ,(apparently was a good basketballer too ) , but she is almost too good for her teammates will make a great play swerving and beating defenders with her pace and then hit a teammate with a beautiful drilling kick and then they cant catch it
She is on a different level
-
The advent of women's professional teams in traditional male sports needs to concentrate talent so the games are as high quality as possible and competitive between teams. The skill level across the competitions will naturally increase as a result of uptake at an earlier age and access to professional coaching.
The difference in women's soccer between now and only a decade ago is huge.
-
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@voodoo said in Who are you watching as priority?:
Pretty amazing huh?
-
Have to say talk about 1st world problems, I will decide as I go, will watch the ABs first half and then play it by ear. I know it a cock up by someone in NZR, but really is it the end of the world?
Wayne Smith jokes he may waych ABs whil watching the woman , but will need to hold his phone below bench so noone on tv sees him. For christ sake there has to be more important things to worry about, I know of a few who say the will be watching the cricket anyway so......................... -
@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@mariner4life said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:
@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:
Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.
Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,
I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .
There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.
Case in point:
- Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
- Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
- Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.
my view is that the AFL size field is just too big for the women. They aren't quick enough, nor can they kick far enough. Make the field smaller and i think the game gets better
There are some great female athletes playing. But not enough, and even then...
i still fucking love Orla O'Dwyer though
I watch richmond a bit but havent seen all the teams, but they do have a little midfielder monique conti who is a great little player ,(apparently was a good basketballer too ) , but she is almost too good for her teammates will make a great play swerving and beating defenders with her pace and then hit a teammate with a beautiful drilling kick and then they cant catch it
She is on a different level
She played in the WNBL for Bulleen and repped Aussie as a junior. She has terrific footwork and hand eye coordination. She’s not tall and I think she’s still playing Bball in the footy off-season but at the NBL1 level only.
Yeah the skills are going to take some time to even up and I think the AFL are in for the long haul so it’s a matter of when and not if.
Week On Demand
