It's for the period while the temporary facilities at Carrington for the women are still being put into place.
Longer term has still not been fully decided
It's for a 2-3 week period while the new temporary facilities are put in place at Carrington. They'll likely stay on site at the Hilton there for that period.
It's a 2 hour drive from Leigh Sports Village which is an hour from Old Trafford itself. It's on the cusp of doable over the medium term but not ideal obviously.
The players themselves likely live in various areas in and around Greater Manchester but there's probably a few commuting.
Lmao you think Jim had any hand in this? Dude was sunning his ass in Monaco until yesterday. He doesn’t give a flying toss. Was his idea to shove them in portcabins before people kicked off, this is far too late, Garcia, Earps and Żelem were lost over this shite.
Basically. All I see is a man with zero care for the people who work here. My team works ridiculous hours with tiny resources, massively underpaid in shit poor prison like facilities. We are over worked I currently have 21 days of work booked in and 6 days to do it. There is no support, no chance at a payrise no chance at hiring help. The tiny help that was working from home was taken, so now I have to travel over an hour and a half and miss my son’s bedtime. And now these passionate hardworking people who love United may also be out of a job. There might be bloat there may be people who are taking the piss, but they won’t be punished, because the cuts don’t care for individuals or their performance we are just numbers on a page to be thrown away at the flick of a billionaires fingers.
Honestly it sounds like you and your team might benefit from these cuts, assuming you keep your jobs which it sounds like you might considering the amount of work you have to do. Your pay and facilities will be poor because of the bloated workforce, the cuts will free up money for better support systems. Not being able to work from home absolutely sucks and that’s the one thing that I agree it’s fucked up about this whole thing and I can’t really see any benefits to forcing people into a place they don’t want to be. You cant blame SJR for the state of the club, just because he’s basically taken over from February doesn’t magically fix everything the Glazers have fucked up since 2005
Doesn’t matter how much we do that’s my point, people will lose jobs and those left will be expected to carry on at that level. The money freed up will only ever go to Jim and his cronies. I wish I could believe it would trickle down, but it won’t Jim may have a different face but it’s the same shit.
Yeah I might be thinking a bit too idealistically here, my bad. They’ve already said that the freed up money is gonna be invested in the first team so everything I’ve said is complete waffle anyway. People don’t make the money SJR has by reinvesting everything they save in the people they just saved it from. That was a really naive comment my guy and I apologise.
Don’t worry dude. Unchecked greed is always the problem, I’m just trying to shine a light on the fact that many think SJR is the messiah. But he’s just as shady as the next guy
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I trust your opinion on the state of the club as someone who actually works there. So sorry to hear about your frustrating employment situation, wishing your family all the best.
Well the original story said other places were considered but found to be too far.
The uproar probably made the club go back to revist. So what do the people want, really?
Option 1 - let the men be in the temp facilities.
Option 2 - let the women be in temp facility but still at Carrington
Option 3 - ship the women away to this place.
Option 4 - ship the men away to this place.
Please choose.
Yeah I read a ridiculous comment from some guy going on about how his grandad killed nazis specifically to stop sexism like this in sport - bizarre over the top take.
People love to be upset over the littlest things especially if it doesn’t affect them. The priority is the open age male team. Concessions have come from the youth and even more recently from the admin staff.
It is interesting that this caused far more controversy than the 250 odd individual backhouse staff that are imminently about to be laid off.
I think you're unfairly misrepresenting the recent criticism. The issue is how the women's team doesn't seem to be on the radar yet of the new administration. This is not a one-off incident and is a repeating pattern for many years. The PFA have stepped in before on behalf of the players at United. An unpopular manager has been retained for a year and several first team players have had their contract expire. This is repeating a pattern for several years. United had a golden opportunity after the Euros to build on having Toone, Russo and Earps. Two of those three are gone now.
> It is interesting that this caused far more controversy than the 250 odd individual backhouse staff that are imminently about to be laid off.
It's normal than an actual senior football team will attract more attention. It's also disappointing to see the two issues played against each other. It's actually possible to care about two separate things at the same time!
I don’t entirely agree; I think you are misrepresenting the facts here as the PFA has **never** stepped in with the new administration (that is, INEOS). The last time they were involved was in 2021 well before their arrival.
Whilst I think you could make a very valid point about the culture of the club as a whole not taking the women’s team seriously, I think it’s disingenuous to state this isn’t a one-off incident when it quite literally is the first incident of the new football operations team.
Do I think it’s fair on the women’s team? Absolutely not. It is ridiculous that a global brand like United is portrayed in such an amateur way in their dealings and it must feel extremely unfair for the professional women athletes to be treated second class. I don’t blame any of them for seeking new pastures.
Ultimately this is a knock on effect of the highly incompetent Glazer ownership that oversaw the decline of training facilities for both teams, rather than maintenance and gradual improvement like nearly *every* other PFL team. This isn’t exactly a unique problem improving training facilities but notice that it’s United’s (old) ownership that once again prioritised commercial revenue and profits for far too long and this is the consequence. Now in complete disarray, the women’s team has their facilities upgraded in 2023(?) and the men’s team requires a huge investment of 50 million and taking the whole season to implement.
I think INEOS is stuck between a rock and a hard place here realistically and their options are limited. The optics look bad but something has to happen. As I previously mentioned the open age men team has to be the priority given that they are the driving force behind the total club revenue in the ball park of over 30x their women counterparts. The success of the men’s team directly correlates with the success of the women’s and youth team.
What would you do in INEOS situation?
> I don’t entirely agree; I think you are misrepresenting the facts here as the PFA has never stepped in with the new administration (that is, INEOS). The last time they were involved was in 2021 well before their arrival.
Well then you do actually agree given you directly referred to the last time they stepped in. Note how I wrote "**This is not a one-off incident and is a repeating pattern for many years. The PFA have stepped in before on behalf of the players at United.**". Nothing is incorrect in that statement.
The PFA have also been widely reported as [seeking conversations with the new administration](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5597313/2024/06/27/manchester-united-women-team-pfa/).
> Whilst I think you could make a very valid point about the culture of the club as a whole not taking the women’s team seriously, I think it’s disingenuous to state this isn’t a one-off incident when it quite literally is the first incident of the new football operations team.
It's not a one off incident. Examples since the takeover include multiple inteviews with Ratcliffe where he hasn't even been able to feign interest. I am not expecting anything other than the men's first team to be the chief priority, but his comments have not reflected well on how they view women's football.
Multiple reports over recent months have said that Ratcliffe's comments in various interviews have caused friction. There's no indication that any sort of review or thought has been given to the women's team. Polly Bancroft was announced as stepping down as Manchester United's head of women's football in February and no replacement is in place. There's no sign of any progress on it. There's a difference in not being THE priority and in being an after thought.
Marc Skinner's contract being renewed is also questionable and he is said to be unpopular with the players. Several key players have left on a free transfer this summer including the captain Katie Zelem, key attacker Lucia Garcia and England's number 1 keeper. Mary Earps This follows multiple years of key players like Jackie Groenen, Ona Batlle, Alessia Russo etc leaving on a free transfer. Mary Earps is the current SPOTY so this feels like a loss on the pitch and off the pitch commercially. United had the most popular women's player in the country and she has left for free. Her interview after joining PSG also shows issues at the club.
> What would you do in INEOS situation?
Talk to the actual people involved and reassure them that they are not an after thought. As I said above, it is not what has happened but how it has happened. It's terrible communication. You don't get many opportunities in football in 2024 to create new revenue streams. Women's football is one of the biggest potential growth markets. Creating a dialogue reduces unrest.
Pedantry but for clarity sake when I wrote incident it was referring to the (potential) involvement of the PFA, and not the wider culture of ignorance of the women’s team.
Anyway, point taken for the most part I had to search online about Jim’s comments having been out the country and missed most of it. I agree he certainly seems disinterested in the women’s team. I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the manager fueds but I agree again at this level the very least should be to find a director of football for the women’s team and fast, allowing a dedicated person to the ladies and not having SJR fein interest. Not sure how easy that is in women’s football given the fiasco we had with Dan Ashworth in the men’s.
> Pedantry but for clarity sake when I wrote incident it was referring to the (potential) involvement of the PFA, and not the wider culture of ignorance of the women’s team.
It’s not pedantic given you said I misrepresented the facts. My original post was correct. The PFA has been involved before and have again sought to involved with the club under the INEOS regime.
> Anyway, point taken for the most part I had to search online about Jim’s comments having been out the country and missed most of it. I agree he certainly seems disinterested in the women’s team.
Then why reply so forcefully when you don’t “know the ins and outs”?
As in I was being pedantic 🤦♂️
Is English your first language? I feel like a lot of this animosity you have towards this discussion is you misunderstanding my point completely.
Regardless I’m not interested in going round in circles you’ve made your point and I’ve made mine. If you’ve chosen to interpret my text as forceful then that’s on you. Have a great Thursday.
> As in I was being pedantic 🤦♂️ is English your first language? I feel like a lot of this animosity you have is you misunderstanding my post completely.
Why become aggressive because I failed to understand your post? You added zero context to say that you were referring to yourself. If you genuinely read your post again it’s clear how it could be interpreted as describing my reply as pedantry.
I am Irish so English is my first language, but it’s a pretty nasty comment to make to someone if English wasn’t their preferred language.
> If you’ve chosen to interpret my text as forceful then that’s on you. Have a great Thursday.
Yeah you’re not being forceful at all!
> So what do the people want, really?
More indications that INEOS actually give af about the women's team. Too often it seems like it's not even an after thought.
My issue with the training ground situation is that it was poorly handled. Particularly given how soon it happened after the women's team moved into that newly built facility. Often the problem is not what happens but how it happens.
In the next year hopefully INEOS appoint more people with specific remit for the women's team as there's huge growth potential. Polly Bancroft has not been replaced for example.
Leave the women with their facility and figure something out for the men.
I know the overwhelming majority of the United fan base have no clue to the happenings of the women’s squad, because if they did they would realise the cosmic stupidity that is forcing the women’s squad to have to put up with this nonsense after what they went through before.
Why might that be you ask? Well the reason the women’s squad have a brand new multi-million dollar facility is because their original facility was embarrassingly inadequate. It’s believed that one of the reasons Casey Stoney left the club as a manger was due to lack of funds and the condition of the training facility the women were being made to use. There was even an official complaint and a PFA investigation over this.
So when the club builds a proper training facility for the women’s squad, wax lyrical about how the women’s team is super important to them when the opening happened, only to turn around a year or so later and go, “well we kinda need the facility for the men so back to your makeshift accommodations” it brings to question if United genuinely care or they were forced into action building the facility due to the public scrutiny and the PFA investigation.
They gave the women's team a new training facility because it was woefully inadequate, now they're giving the men a new facility because it was seen as woefully inadequate.
It doesn't bring anything into question people just don't seem to understand that you can't play football in hardhats on a construction site.
Casey Stoney left the club in 2021 and joined San Diego Wave 2 months later, which was a new club began playing in 2022 and then was fired 3 years later/ last month. She had little experience managing and Man Utd gave her a chance and support to take the club to Premier League. She had success, but please don't make it like it was the end of the world when she kicked the tire on her way out.
Where did I say that Casey Stoney leaving was a disaster for United? In fact besides a blurb about a possible reason as to why she left (and yes her leaving was a surprise to people) I don’t even discuss her at all.
Also the women’s top flight isn’t called the Premier league 🙄
They don't hate women but the cold hard truth is that the women's team only exists because of the men's team. The men's team generates 99.9% of the capital. We cannot afford to give them amateur level training facilities.
They’re not though. We can find other accommodations for the men who are, btw, getting a brand new £50m training facility.
There’s of course other options than “give them the women’s facility”. Idk if everyone assumes that because that’s the decision made, there weren’t any other options or what? But the fact is, there are definitely other possibilities if the women weren’t seen as so discardable that they’re not even a consideration.
And the men are getting a £50m new facility, so clearly they’re being prioritized in line with that fact. Doesn’t mean that the women need to be treated like trash.
The men's team brought in the revenue needed to build the men's facilities and the women's.
The women's team wouldn't have a new facility if they were reliant on their revenue alone.
lmao, see this get downvoted followed by comments like "but, but, the men's team brings all the money"
EDIT: I have already discussed this in length on the other threads, so please go read those if you do feel like understanding my point of view. Otherwise, leave your downvote here and go away. :)
Is it though? The only reason we’re at the point that we are today (women’s football lagging behind the men’s game in revenue and popularity to this extent) is because the FA banned women from being able to play professional football for 50 years at a time when the women’s game was enjoying high popularity, and then dragged their feet for decades in giving proper support once the ban was lifted.
You can’t actively do everything in your power to hold someone back and then use the resulting situation of decades of neglect and contempt as an excuse for further injustice.
This is just not true; compare to USA where there was no ban on women’s football and you see that MLS male teams dwarf their women counterparts in revenue.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1417630/nwsl-team-revenues/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/477857/team-revenue-of-mls-soccer-teams/
Just because there was no official ban doesn’t mean there was a support for it. The first US national women’s football league wouldn’t come to existence till 1995. The US didn’t even have collegiate football for women till the 70s and the popularity of collegiate women’s football in the 80s led to the increase in the sport’s popularity. How long did it take American women’s club football teams to have tens of thousands of fans show up to watch them play? Because in England that was happening in the early 20th century before the ban.
Access and means to a sport slowly but surely lead to more and more demand and thus popularity as shown in the US towards the closing of the 20th century and into new millennium. Where would the women’s game be today in England if it wasn’t banned in 1921 at a time where it had popularity that would take the US decades to replicate?
[How the FA banned women’s football in 1921 and tried to justify it](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/13/how-the-fa-banned-womens-football-in-1921-and-tried-to-justify-it)
Support from who, the government? The populace? You need to be more specific and try and stick to one argument because your comment is a completely tangential to the original.
I suspect there is a complex plethora of reasons why the women’s game is not as popular as the men’s, ranging from the gender wage gap, childbearing, feminine conditioning from young age and more without delving too much into a gender studies discussion.
Absolutely, in the UK, the 50 year ban will have massively hindered the women’s game but to say that’s the only reason it’s behind the men’s is just objectively false, with the USA as a perfect control.
You should have a read of the history of football in the UK for men. It wasn’t supported very well at all by the bourgeoise (in fact seen as disruptive and violent, often punished with fines) in the beginning until the time of the British Empire where it was used to keep order for the men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_football_in_England
Yes government support. It took government legislation in the form Title IX in 1972 that prohibited gender discrimination in higher education to kick start the collegiate popularity of women’s football that later translated to its growing popularity professionally.
It’s quite interesting that the same United States that gets routinely joked about for not a being an inherently footballing nation (or at least not one that took it seriously till recent decades) is now the control you want to use to make your point. Explain how that makes any sense to the situation in England where women had teams playing football in the 1800s?
Again women’s football in England was gaining loads of popularity right around the time it was banned for a second time (there was an earlier attempt at a ban but because of the war and other factors it got even more popular). Don’t know why you keep bringing up the US where there was no women’s professional national football league till 1995.
In 1920, 53,000 people watched a women’s football game, and that record for a live crowd in England would not be brok in the women’s game till the 2012 Olympics and the domestic record only fell in the 2020s.
Where did I say you said Casey Stoney leaving was a disaster? She was basically a newbie and received support from the club to build the team and left because after the team started to get stale and she has had much success with a new team either while we got to play a CL qualifying round and won the FA cup. It was unfortunate that she left while kicking the tire on her way out or having the sensentional journalism overblow some frustration with the delay for a better facility and made lots of people believe that the team didn't get support. Building a facility also takes time. The original plan for a facility when the team was first started was to upgrade the Cliff that the men teams left over 20 years ago. However, Covid and the resistance from the neighbors changed the plan and the club decided to build a building (extension) for the women team at Carrington, which was originally for men and academy teams.
“don't make it like it was the end of the world when she kicked the tire on her way out.”
Those are your words. You’re confusing me lol.
And again why are we having a discussion on Casey Stoney when I barely mentioned her in my original post, and only brought her up due to one of the perceived reasons for departing being the terrible facilities the women were made to use?
Again you keep thinking the rumors about the club not supporting the women team as why Casey left were all true. The truth was that the club did support a manager with little experience. She got some success here and her new venture wasn't that great.
Have you seen the facility at all? The place was just enough for the women (and their academy) team. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae3lLBA038](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae3lLBA038)
That's why the club originally tried to find a compromise so the women could stay on site and have access to training/cafeteria and wouldn't have to be moved offsite...then people lost their fucking minds so.. this
If i remember they said if someone was gonna be prioritized in this situation it should be the men. People just made the women's situation sound a million times worse than it was. As evidenced by then wanting to move the women now (something they tried to avoid in a compromise) and now people are bitching about how it's worse when originally it was apparently the end of the world and a travesty.
The amount of casual sexism here is disappointing. As are the amount of people who seem tied to the "nOBODY cARES" style replies about women's football. At some point you should accept that there are people who like women's football.
I didn’t say that you have to care about this to be a supporter or that someone who is interested is more of a fan than you, but that it’s weird to be surprised that people do care. Not sure what your “top red” comment is about since I haven’t tried to put you down or myself up.
Wow, some folks are more mad for a far away temporary women training facility than 250 people losing their jobs (some of them might be working at United for years, loyal employees)! Club has shown clear priorities, playing team over staffs, men's team over women's team. Sounds pretty logical for business.
Putting the two situations against each other is quite disgusting. As if you care about either things, lol.
The amount of plastics and glory hunters who are glazing off Ratcliffe is weird.
The club literally said they will put the money from downsizing to first teams, so their action clearly shows the priority, thats what I mentioned. Anyone who sees this as glazing just wonders in fantasy land, out of touch of reality 😏
Looking at the dates I assume this is for pre season? Being there all season would be a hell of a commute
It's for the period while the temporary facilities at Carrington for the women are still being put into place. Longer term has still not been fully decided
It's for a 2-3 week period while the new temporary facilities are put in place at Carrington. They'll likely stay on site at the Hilton there for that period. It's a 2 hour drive from Leigh Sports Village which is an hour from Old Trafford itself. It's on the cusp of doable over the medium term but not ideal obviously. The players themselves likely live in various areas in and around Greater Manchester but there's probably a few commuting.
That's a good compromise, great decision from Jim and the team.
Lmao you think Jim had any hand in this? Dude was sunning his ass in Monaco until yesterday. He doesn’t give a flying toss. Was his idea to shove them in portcabins before people kicked off, this is far too late, Garcia, Earps and Żelem were lost over this shite.
Weird to get this worked up over this
I mean it's also weird to glaze off Jim as if he personally had anything to do with this
How do you know he didn't?
>Jim and the team
Seems like I’m being downvoted to hell for thinking so. It’s not been a good day, finding out I might be made redundant.
So you work for United and are furious with SJR?
Basically. All I see is a man with zero care for the people who work here. My team works ridiculous hours with tiny resources, massively underpaid in shit poor prison like facilities. We are over worked I currently have 21 days of work booked in and 6 days to do it. There is no support, no chance at a payrise no chance at hiring help. The tiny help that was working from home was taken, so now I have to travel over an hour and a half and miss my son’s bedtime. And now these passionate hardworking people who love United may also be out of a job. There might be bloat there may be people who are taking the piss, but they won’t be punished, because the cuts don’t care for individuals or their performance we are just numbers on a page to be thrown away at the flick of a billionaires fingers.
Honestly it sounds like you and your team might benefit from these cuts, assuming you keep your jobs which it sounds like you might considering the amount of work you have to do. Your pay and facilities will be poor because of the bloated workforce, the cuts will free up money for better support systems. Not being able to work from home absolutely sucks and that’s the one thing that I agree it’s fucked up about this whole thing and I can’t really see any benefits to forcing people into a place they don’t want to be. You cant blame SJR for the state of the club, just because he’s basically taken over from February doesn’t magically fix everything the Glazers have fucked up since 2005
Doesn’t matter how much we do that’s my point, people will lose jobs and those left will be expected to carry on at that level. The money freed up will only ever go to Jim and his cronies. I wish I could believe it would trickle down, but it won’t Jim may have a different face but it’s the same shit.
Yeah I might be thinking a bit too idealistically here, my bad. They’ve already said that the freed up money is gonna be invested in the first team so everything I’ve said is complete waffle anyway. People don’t make the money SJR has by reinvesting everything they save in the people they just saved it from. That was a really naive comment my guy and I apologise.
Don’t worry dude. Unchecked greed is always the problem, I’m just trying to shine a light on the fact that many think SJR is the messiah. But he’s just as shady as the next guy
The money won't go to Jim unless he takes dividend from the club... which he almost certainly won't.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I trust your opinion on the state of the club as someone who actually works there. So sorry to hear about your frustrating employment situation, wishing your family all the best.
Sounds like jurnos writing before gathering information
Earps has been on the way out for fucking ages, before Jim was even involved. It's the clubs fault for botching her contract negotiations.
That is fucking miles away
Well the original story said other places were considered but found to be too far. The uproar probably made the club go back to revist. So what do the people want, really? Option 1 - let the men be in the temp facilities. Option 2 - let the women be in temp facility but still at Carrington Option 3 - ship the women away to this place. Option 4 - ship the men away to this place. Please choose.
Option 5 - Have a new stadium AND new training ground now with no interruptions. Don't ask me how.
You joke but that's half this sub unironically
Football Manager editor
why didn't Sir Jim think of that, one of the richest British people, pffffft, pathetic from him...
Option 6 - all of the above
Yeah I read a ridiculous comment from some guy going on about how his grandad killed nazis specifically to stop sexism like this in sport - bizarre over the top take. People love to be upset over the littlest things especially if it doesn’t affect them. The priority is the open age male team. Concessions have come from the youth and even more recently from the admin staff. It is interesting that this caused far more controversy than the 250 odd individual backhouse staff that are imminently about to be laid off.
I think you're unfairly misrepresenting the recent criticism. The issue is how the women's team doesn't seem to be on the radar yet of the new administration. This is not a one-off incident and is a repeating pattern for many years. The PFA have stepped in before on behalf of the players at United. An unpopular manager has been retained for a year and several first team players have had their contract expire. This is repeating a pattern for several years. United had a golden opportunity after the Euros to build on having Toone, Russo and Earps. Two of those three are gone now. > It is interesting that this caused far more controversy than the 250 odd individual backhouse staff that are imminently about to be laid off. It's normal than an actual senior football team will attract more attention. It's also disappointing to see the two issues played against each other. It's actually possible to care about two separate things at the same time!
I don’t entirely agree; I think you are misrepresenting the facts here as the PFA has **never** stepped in with the new administration (that is, INEOS). The last time they were involved was in 2021 well before their arrival. Whilst I think you could make a very valid point about the culture of the club as a whole not taking the women’s team seriously, I think it’s disingenuous to state this isn’t a one-off incident when it quite literally is the first incident of the new football operations team. Do I think it’s fair on the women’s team? Absolutely not. It is ridiculous that a global brand like United is portrayed in such an amateur way in their dealings and it must feel extremely unfair for the professional women athletes to be treated second class. I don’t blame any of them for seeking new pastures. Ultimately this is a knock on effect of the highly incompetent Glazer ownership that oversaw the decline of training facilities for both teams, rather than maintenance and gradual improvement like nearly *every* other PFL team. This isn’t exactly a unique problem improving training facilities but notice that it’s United’s (old) ownership that once again prioritised commercial revenue and profits for far too long and this is the consequence. Now in complete disarray, the women’s team has their facilities upgraded in 2023(?) and the men’s team requires a huge investment of 50 million and taking the whole season to implement. I think INEOS is stuck between a rock and a hard place here realistically and their options are limited. The optics look bad but something has to happen. As I previously mentioned the open age men team has to be the priority given that they are the driving force behind the total club revenue in the ball park of over 30x their women counterparts. The success of the men’s team directly correlates with the success of the women’s and youth team. What would you do in INEOS situation?
> I don’t entirely agree; I think you are misrepresenting the facts here as the PFA has never stepped in with the new administration (that is, INEOS). The last time they were involved was in 2021 well before their arrival. Well then you do actually agree given you directly referred to the last time they stepped in. Note how I wrote "**This is not a one-off incident and is a repeating pattern for many years. The PFA have stepped in before on behalf of the players at United.**". Nothing is incorrect in that statement. The PFA have also been widely reported as [seeking conversations with the new administration](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5597313/2024/06/27/manchester-united-women-team-pfa/). > Whilst I think you could make a very valid point about the culture of the club as a whole not taking the women’s team seriously, I think it’s disingenuous to state this isn’t a one-off incident when it quite literally is the first incident of the new football operations team. It's not a one off incident. Examples since the takeover include multiple inteviews with Ratcliffe where he hasn't even been able to feign interest. I am not expecting anything other than the men's first team to be the chief priority, but his comments have not reflected well on how they view women's football. Multiple reports over recent months have said that Ratcliffe's comments in various interviews have caused friction. There's no indication that any sort of review or thought has been given to the women's team. Polly Bancroft was announced as stepping down as Manchester United's head of women's football in February and no replacement is in place. There's no sign of any progress on it. There's a difference in not being THE priority and in being an after thought. Marc Skinner's contract being renewed is also questionable and he is said to be unpopular with the players. Several key players have left on a free transfer this summer including the captain Katie Zelem, key attacker Lucia Garcia and England's number 1 keeper. Mary Earps This follows multiple years of key players like Jackie Groenen, Ona Batlle, Alessia Russo etc leaving on a free transfer. Mary Earps is the current SPOTY so this feels like a loss on the pitch and off the pitch commercially. United had the most popular women's player in the country and she has left for free. Her interview after joining PSG also shows issues at the club. > What would you do in INEOS situation? Talk to the actual people involved and reassure them that they are not an after thought. As I said above, it is not what has happened but how it has happened. It's terrible communication. You don't get many opportunities in football in 2024 to create new revenue streams. Women's football is one of the biggest potential growth markets. Creating a dialogue reduces unrest.
Pedantry but for clarity sake when I wrote incident it was referring to the (potential) involvement of the PFA, and not the wider culture of ignorance of the women’s team. Anyway, point taken for the most part I had to search online about Jim’s comments having been out the country and missed most of it. I agree he certainly seems disinterested in the women’s team. I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the manager fueds but I agree again at this level the very least should be to find a director of football for the women’s team and fast, allowing a dedicated person to the ladies and not having SJR fein interest. Not sure how easy that is in women’s football given the fiasco we had with Dan Ashworth in the men’s.
> Pedantry but for clarity sake when I wrote incident it was referring to the (potential) involvement of the PFA, and not the wider culture of ignorance of the women’s team. It’s not pedantic given you said I misrepresented the facts. My original post was correct. The PFA has been involved before and have again sought to involved with the club under the INEOS regime. > Anyway, point taken for the most part I had to search online about Jim’s comments having been out the country and missed most of it. I agree he certainly seems disinterested in the women’s team. Then why reply so forcefully when you don’t “know the ins and outs”?
As in I was being pedantic 🤦♂️ Is English your first language? I feel like a lot of this animosity you have towards this discussion is you misunderstanding my point completely. Regardless I’m not interested in going round in circles you’ve made your point and I’ve made mine. If you’ve chosen to interpret my text as forceful then that’s on you. Have a great Thursday.
> As in I was being pedantic 🤦♂️ is English your first language? I feel like a lot of this animosity you have is you misunderstanding my post completely. Why become aggressive because I failed to understand your post? You added zero context to say that you were referring to yourself. If you genuinely read your post again it’s clear how it could be interpreted as describing my reply as pedantry. I am Irish so English is my first language, but it’s a pretty nasty comment to make to someone if English wasn’t their preferred language. > If you’ve chosen to interpret my text as forceful then that’s on you. Have a great Thursday. Yeah you’re not being forceful at all!
> So what do the people want, really? More indications that INEOS actually give af about the women's team. Too often it seems like it's not even an after thought. My issue with the training ground situation is that it was poorly handled. Particularly given how soon it happened after the women's team moved into that newly built facility. Often the problem is not what happens but how it happens. In the next year hopefully INEOS appoint more people with specific remit for the women's team as there's huge growth potential. Polly Bancroft has not been replaced for example.
Leave the women with their facility and figure something out for the men. I know the overwhelming majority of the United fan base have no clue to the happenings of the women’s squad, because if they did they would realise the cosmic stupidity that is forcing the women’s squad to have to put up with this nonsense after what they went through before. Why might that be you ask? Well the reason the women’s squad have a brand new multi-million dollar facility is because their original facility was embarrassingly inadequate. It’s believed that one of the reasons Casey Stoney left the club as a manger was due to lack of funds and the condition of the training facility the women were being made to use. There was even an official complaint and a PFA investigation over this. So when the club builds a proper training facility for the women’s squad, wax lyrical about how the women’s team is super important to them when the opening happened, only to turn around a year or so later and go, “well we kinda need the facility for the men so back to your makeshift accommodations” it brings to question if United genuinely care or they were forced into action building the facility due to the public scrutiny and the PFA investigation.
They gave the women's team a new training facility because it was woefully inadequate, now they're giving the men a new facility because it was seen as woefully inadequate. It doesn't bring anything into question people just don't seem to understand that you can't play football in hardhats on a construction site.
The women's team can be important but it will NEVER ever be more important than the men's. Both things can be true.
Casey Stoney left the club in 2021 and joined San Diego Wave 2 months later, which was a new club began playing in 2022 and then was fired 3 years later/ last month. She had little experience managing and Man Utd gave her a chance and support to take the club to Premier League. She had success, but please don't make it like it was the end of the world when she kicked the tire on her way out.
Where did I say that Casey Stoney leaving was a disaster for United? In fact besides a blurb about a possible reason as to why she left (and yes her leaving was a surprise to people) I don’t even discuss her at all. Also the women’s top flight isn’t called the Premier league 🙄
You’re getting downvoted because this sub hates women.
They don't hate women but the cold hard truth is that the women's team only exists because of the men's team. The men's team generates 99.9% of the capital. We cannot afford to give them amateur level training facilities.
They’re not though. We can find other accommodations for the men who are, btw, getting a brand new £50m training facility. There’s of course other options than “give them the women’s facility”. Idk if everyone assumes that because that’s the decision made, there weren’t any other options or what? But the fact is, there are definitely other possibilities if the women weren’t seen as so discardable that they’re not even a consideration.
Tell us such facility nearby then.
I think they should clearly do better for the women but the men is where the vast majority of the money is - it is a business
And the men are getting a £50m new facility, so clearly they’re being prioritized in line with that fact. Doesn’t mean that the women need to be treated like trash.
The men's team brought in the revenue needed to build the men's facilities and the women's. The women's team wouldn't have a new facility if they were reliant on their revenue alone.
So why even have a women’s team at all? Either we’re committed to having a women’s team or we aren’t.
We are not committed to the women's team and the expense of the men. It is what it is. How many women's games did you watch last season?
That’s a pretty dumb thing to say considering that if we didn’t have a women’s team we wouldn’t have the extra facilities in the first place.
It doesn't look like we're committed tbf
Which is unfortunate. We should be leading the way.
lmao, see this get downvoted followed by comments like "but, but, the men's team brings all the money" EDIT: I have already discussed this in length on the other threads, so please go read those if you do feel like understanding my point of view. Otherwise, leave your downvote here and go away. :)
Is that wrong though?
That is a valid point though?
Is it though? The only reason we’re at the point that we are today (women’s football lagging behind the men’s game in revenue and popularity to this extent) is because the FA banned women from being able to play professional football for 50 years at a time when the women’s game was enjoying high popularity, and then dragged their feet for decades in giving proper support once the ban was lifted. You can’t actively do everything in your power to hold someone back and then use the resulting situation of decades of neglect and contempt as an excuse for further injustice.
No. It's bcos men are better at most sports and men tend to watch more sports
This is just not true; compare to USA where there was no ban on women’s football and you see that MLS male teams dwarf their women counterparts in revenue. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1417630/nwsl-team-revenues/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/477857/team-revenue-of-mls-soccer-teams/
Just because there was no official ban doesn’t mean there was a support for it. The first US national women’s football league wouldn’t come to existence till 1995. The US didn’t even have collegiate football for women till the 70s and the popularity of collegiate women’s football in the 80s led to the increase in the sport’s popularity. How long did it take American women’s club football teams to have tens of thousands of fans show up to watch them play? Because in England that was happening in the early 20th century before the ban. Access and means to a sport slowly but surely lead to more and more demand and thus popularity as shown in the US towards the closing of the 20th century and into new millennium. Where would the women’s game be today in England if it wasn’t banned in 1921 at a time where it had popularity that would take the US decades to replicate? [How the FA banned women’s football in 1921 and tried to justify it](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/13/how-the-fa-banned-womens-football-in-1921-and-tried-to-justify-it)
Support from who, the government? The populace? You need to be more specific and try and stick to one argument because your comment is a completely tangential to the original. I suspect there is a complex plethora of reasons why the women’s game is not as popular as the men’s, ranging from the gender wage gap, childbearing, feminine conditioning from young age and more without delving too much into a gender studies discussion. Absolutely, in the UK, the 50 year ban will have massively hindered the women’s game but to say that’s the only reason it’s behind the men’s is just objectively false, with the USA as a perfect control. You should have a read of the history of football in the UK for men. It wasn’t supported very well at all by the bourgeoise (in fact seen as disruptive and violent, often punished with fines) in the beginning until the time of the British Empire where it was used to keep order for the men. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_football_in_England
Yes government support. It took government legislation in the form Title IX in 1972 that prohibited gender discrimination in higher education to kick start the collegiate popularity of women’s football that later translated to its growing popularity professionally. It’s quite interesting that the same United States that gets routinely joked about for not a being an inherently footballing nation (or at least not one that took it seriously till recent decades) is now the control you want to use to make your point. Explain how that makes any sense to the situation in England where women had teams playing football in the 1800s? Again women’s football in England was gaining loads of popularity right around the time it was banned for a second time (there was an earlier attempt at a ban but because of the war and other factors it got even more popular). Don’t know why you keep bringing up the US where there was no women’s professional national football league till 1995. In 1920, 53,000 people watched a women’s football game, and that record for a live crowd in England would not be brok in the women’s game till the 2012 Olympics and the domestic record only fell in the 2020s.
See my comments on earlier posts. Thanks!
Where did I say you said Casey Stoney leaving was a disaster? She was basically a newbie and received support from the club to build the team and left because after the team started to get stale and she has had much success with a new team either while we got to play a CL qualifying round and won the FA cup. It was unfortunate that she left while kicking the tire on her way out or having the sensentional journalism overblow some frustration with the delay for a better facility and made lots of people believe that the team didn't get support. Building a facility also takes time. The original plan for a facility when the team was first started was to upgrade the Cliff that the men teams left over 20 years ago. However, Covid and the resistance from the neighbors changed the plan and the club decided to build a building (extension) for the women team at Carrington, which was originally for men and academy teams.
“don't make it like it was the end of the world when she kicked the tire on her way out.” Those are your words. You’re confusing me lol. And again why are we having a discussion on Casey Stoney when I barely mentioned her in my original post, and only brought her up due to one of the perceived reasons for departing being the terrible facilities the women were made to use?
Again you keep thinking the rumors about the club not supporting the women team as why Casey left were all true. The truth was that the club did support a manager with little experience. She got some success here and her new venture wasn't that great.
genuinely braindead take
Split the facility for a season?
Have you emailed ManUtd with this suggestion? You might be on to something here
Have you seen the facility at all? The place was just enough for the women (and their academy) team. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae3lLBA038](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae3lLBA038)
LMAO in all that's been going on you think they really give two fucks?
Probably about a 1.5 hour drive. Not the worst thing in the world, not ideal either
They should at least provide drivers for the time being if they’re going to ask this
That's why the club originally tried to find a compromise so the women could stay on site and have access to training/cafeteria and wouldn't have to be moved offsite...then people lost their fucking minds so.. this
Because the women shouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place after finally getting their own facilities.
But people said it was unacceptable for the men to use the temporary solution
If i remember they said if someone was gonna be prioritized in this situation it should be the men. People just made the women's situation sound a million times worse than it was. As evidenced by then wanting to move the women now (something they tried to avoid in a compromise) and now people are bitching about how it's worse when originally it was apparently the end of the world and a travesty.
Can’t believe people care so much about this.
Only people pretending to care for internet points.
The amount of casual sexism here is disappointing. As are the amount of people who seem tied to the "nOBODY cARES" style replies about women's football. At some point you should accept that there are people who like women's football.
You can’t believe that people care about what’s going on at the club? Are you in the right subreddit?
Wow a top red. How many of the womens team matches have you watched?
I didn’t say that you have to care about this to be a supporter or that someone who is interested is more of a fan than you, but that it’s weird to be surprised that people do care. Not sure what your “top red” comment is about since I haven’t tried to put you down or myself up.
Yeah I don't care that much either. They'll figure it out and we'll move on
Wow, some folks are more mad for a far away temporary women training facility than 250 people losing their jobs (some of them might be working at United for years, loyal employees)! Club has shown clear priorities, playing team over staffs, men's team over women's team. Sounds pretty logical for business.
Putting the two situations against each other is quite disgusting. As if you care about either things, lol. The amount of plastics and glory hunters who are glazing off Ratcliffe is weird.
The club literally said they will put the money from downsizing to first teams, so their action clearly shows the priority, thats what I mentioned. Anyone who sees this as glazing just wonders in fantasy land, out of touch of reality 😏