Skip to main content
Recent Posts
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: What's pleasing me today
Last post by tricky -
Golf is an excellent game, that I gave up about a decade ago because of a wrist issue.

It's on the relatively long list of sports I gave up, that were supposed to replace football when I gave that up.

My sporting endeavours are typified by two main things. Being sh!t, and giving up.

Can't wait for a game tomorrow. Football I just don't know how to stop. I have an idea for a new replacement. Need to lose some weight first though.
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: World Cup 2019
Last post by noodlé -
Where income is dependent on popularity, and the numbers of seats that can be shifted at a higher price, I believe that pay and prizes should reflect that.

Yes indeed.

I think it's great that women's sport is getting more press and TV coverage. If that coverage is out of proportion with the  underlying popularity of the sport then that's fine... more coverage = more awareness and interest = more money flowing into that sport = higher standards = more interest = etc etc... it's a virtuous circle and a fine use of a publicly funded broadcaster such as the BBC (and any other broadcaster that think's it's worth the investment).

But when the athletes themselves demand parity of earnings (and they do in some fields, and in others there's no shortage of them beomaning the disparity between them and the blokes) I stop listening. We can, and should, artificially boost the earning potential of female athletes so that they can make a living.. be professional.. get better etc. But let's not worry about elevating them to the nonsense levels of those (mainly) men who make super money because they are at the top and people/companies are throwing cash at them. You wanna be that rich? Then be that good.

I've not watched any of the WC yet because of the time of day. If England progress further I'll try to stay up and see them. Every women's football game I've watched over the last few years has been better than they last... they clearly can, and will, produce games that are as entertaining as the men. Bring it on.
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: What's pleasing me today
Last post by Muswell -
Started playing golf again 3 years ago after effectively a gap of 15 years. Our four ball team  scramble  just finished 1st in a competition that in the last 3 years we have finished, 5th, 4th and 3rd.

It’s the small things that put a smile on your face
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: World Cup 2019
Last post by tricky -

Yes, very possibly.

A) How is it not doing that?

B) Why can't one of its merits be "a commitment to gender equality" rather than just objective "bestness".
A) There have been calls from women players to have the same prize money as the men's game.  They don't attract the same level of income.

B) How can you have a commitment to gender equality, when one of the core principles is gender exclusion?

I don't believe I have passed comment on what's best. I do not presume that people want to watch either game more or less than the other. There may well be qualities in the women's game that makes it a more attractive spectacle. I merely think that if you are to make an exception, and define participation based on gender, that you should have a separate game that stands on it's own merits and income. Not entirely.  I think it is entirely reasonable to encourage and fund all grass roots football, men's and women's....but professional sport is a different beast. It is a paid entertainment industry.

Should advances for poetry books, be the same as for popularist novels, because they are both produced by writers? Should record companies move money from popular music, into swiss yodelling groups? 

Where income is dependent on popularity, and the numbers of seats that can be shifted at a higher price, I believe that pay and prizes should reflect that. You can't make a coherent logical argument saying that 'they are the same', but maintaining an ingrained difference. They are not the same. Equality of opportunity is deprived to a vast group, to allow another group who can't do the thing as well, to have a meaningful competition.  If we don't believe, or want to accept, that then fine.  Let's just call it football and open it up to everyone.
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: World Cup 2019
Last post by Russ -
England's men got paid around two grand a game for the last World Cup. I don't think it should be too difficult for the FA to pay the women the same sort of coin for their version of the competition.

What they do with it might differ. I believe it's tradition for the England men to give their international match fees to charity, but I wouldn't begrudge the women keeping theirs.
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: The managerial merry-go-round
Last post by noodlé -
I’d put myself through some sh!tty mercenary years in China for a lot less than £12m a year. But it would have to be a lot more than I could earn otherwise, and enough to make a material difference to my long term living conditions.

If I was Rafa I think I’d pass. I don’t think it’s worth it. It would be an experience, I suppose, but I’d be more interested in waiting for a European gig with trophy potential. Rafa is a good manager.
The Daily Cut and Thrust / Re: Tory Leadership Poll
Last post by Lessred -
I've just read it all, it's a bit repetitive, is it one of those AI written stories you hear about? It confirmed my prejudice against the mail. Mrs Lessred reads it online and keeps coming up with crap stories about this that or the other killing you/making you live longer or this and that celebrity doing something mind numbing.

I don't mind a bit of rightish journalism myself, but I choose prefer the Times, they have actual news in that.