Womens' rugby Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

The Lost Sheep

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

A waste of money.

They should stay amateur and if enough women start paying attention either in the stands or on tv then they can look for their share of the cash.

Waste of money how?
They arent getting an appropriate share of the money as it is.

TheAnalyst_

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They aren’t getting anywhere near their share of the cash as it is. So frankly, you’re totally wrong.

Their share? How much money do they bring in?

irishbucsfan

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Their share? How much money do they bring in?

You’re the one who is saying they aren’t worth it. How much do they bring in? Tell us why we should relegate them to amateur status.

They can split back from the IRFU so and we can take the IOC funding and leave the twats behind while explaining to the government why a supposed NGB doesn’t think they are responsible for the development of the women’s game.

TheAnalyst_

The IOC aren't going to give a full time wage to someone who's taken up a sport a year ago.

The Lost Sheep

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They have to balance the books while developing rugby in Ireland.

Just as the NZRU have to balance the books while developing rugby in Ireland, without the same cash being generated by the 6 Nations or Champions Cup that funds Irish rugby (and allows our provinces to outbid theirs for players).

The NZRU obviously don't feel that women's rugby needs to be sacrificed to balance the books, but maybe the kiwis are just terrible at developing rugby!

Yeah,

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

A waste of money.

They should stay amateur and if enough women start paying attention either in the stands or on tv then they can look for their share of the cash.

Thats nonsense. Game goes more professional, then development of game can be easier and its better for all.

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Their share? How much money do they bring in?

Does it totally matter?

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

The IOC aren't going to give a full time wage to someone who's taken up a sport a year ago.

IOC give people grants based on ability not when they took up a sport

irishbucsfan

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

The IOC aren't going to give a full time wage to someone who's taken up a sport a year ago.

That has nothing to do with this. Even girls who play for Ireland in their first year of playing rugby have a huge, generally very successful, history of playing other disciplines or they wouldn’t be in the picture.

TheAnalyst_

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That has nothing to do with this. Even girls who play for Ireland in their first year of playing rugby have a huge, generally very successful, history of playing other disciplines or they wouldn’t be in the picture.

They're not elite athletes deserving of money. If you can walk into a national team after a year then you know there is no player base.

The Lost Sheep

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

They're not elite athletes deserving of money. If you can walk into a national team after a year then you know there is no player base.

If you can make national team soon from playing the sport doesnt mean you dont deserve funding.

irishbucsfan

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

They're not elite athletes deserving of money. If you can walk into a national team after a year then you know there is no player base.

You may know. But the people who actually know what they’re talking about don’t agree.

And if there is no player base, then there’s more evidence than ever that investment is needed.

The Lost Sheep

Ladies AIL cup finals were today
http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/41690.php#.WrboZojFLIU

The Lost Sheep

AIL final is in Portlaoise on Saturday,
Bohs v Belvedere

irishbucsfan

Ah, shame its in Portlaoise, loads of people will be in Dublin for the Leinster match. Missed opportunity there.

LeinsterDub

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

They're not elite athletes deserving of money. If you can walk into a national team after a year then you know there is no player base.

Hmm

The Lost Sheep

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah, shame its in Portlaoise, loads of people will be in Dublin for the Leinster match. Missed opportunity there.

Neutral. Bohs not wanting to play in Dublin??
Possibly would have helped with crowd though.
Tralee and St Marys playing in playoff for promotion to AIL in Portlaoise at same time

The Lost Sheep

Talk that RFU are restoring contracts for Englands 15s players
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2018/04/30/rfu-restore-contracts-england-women-build-up-2021-world-cup/

The Lost Sheep

Changes for the Women's Rugby World Cup from 2021.
Tournament will take place over 35 days not 23 days which means four days between pool games, five or six days between knock-out rounds and the Squad size will increase from 28 to 30 players.

Iompair

That sounds sensible, it was great to see so many games in 3 weeks at the last one, but it must be tough on the players.

The Lost Sheep

Iompair wrote: »

That sounds sensible, it was great to see so many games in 3 weeks at the last one, but it must be tough on the players.

Its a very good sign and brings tournament more in line with the mens competition.

The Lost Sheep

Ireland to play the United States in November in Donnybrook

errlloyd

Really disappointing news today that the IRFU turned down an offer for the women to go on a three test tour of Australia with the ozzies paying the accommodation bills and each game being a curtain opener to the men.

I know it would have cost a lot, probably in the region of a quarter of a million, and many of the players would have struggled to get time off work, but it seems like a total backward step.

irishbucsfan

Players really wouldn't have had too many problems and the ARU offered to cover travel and accommodation costs.

Sport Ireland need to step in soon, the IRFU's attitude towards women's rugby, considering they are an NGB, is pathetic.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Players really wouldn't have had too many problems and the ARU offered to cover travel and accommodation costs.

Yeah, I think it was just our travel down, and maybe internal flights we'd have had to pay for. So my estimate of ~250k was absolute maximum.

This would have been such a great opportunity. Are a huge chunk of the women's backroom team with the 7s or something?

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

This would have been such a great opportunity. Are a huge chunk of the women's backroom team with the 7s or something?

Eddy would be with the 7s, but he's of little consequence and this could be planned around quite easily.

I mean even if 3 weeks would have been costly, a single test match would have been a huge opportunity. The team wasn't even told about the offer.

connemara man

https://twitter.com/SeneNaoupu/status/1004638812390264832?s=19

https://twitter.com/LEAH__LYONZ/status/1004683252572086274?s=19

https://twitter.com/bananacaplice/status/1004673178021613569?s=19

Current national players and one stating decisions like this is forcing her out of the game the IRFU need to cop the hell on

arsebiscuits1

Playing devils advocate here.

Where would the support staff come from? The coaches, physios, admin, medics? Who organises the travel of a squad of 30 players when we already have 4 teams travelling simultaneously.

We have 2 Sevens teams competing the in the World Cup in San Francisco in 3 weeks and the same 2 teams competing this weekend in Paris.

I'm not trying to belittle Womens rugby. Nor am I insinuating that Sevens in more important.

But there is a huge crossover in Ireland between Sevens and Womens and logistically this would have been a huge ask

Squidgy Black

There has to be some intervention somewhere along the lines.

I know the IRFU are doing good work with the women's 7s at the moment, but the treatment the 15s players get is absolutely shocking.

Even decisions like playing their November series the day after the men's in Donnybrook. Why not have them play in the Aviva as an opener? And last years decision to reject RTE's offer of a primetime slot as a double header with the U20s and insisting the games have to be played on a Sunday.

Buer

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here.

Where would the support staff come from? The coaches, physios, admin, medics? Who organises the travel of a squad of 30 players when we already have 4 teams travelling simultaneously.

Ireland has just enjoyed the biggest bumper payday of rugby they've ever had. If they can't come up with the money for sending a squad down this summer, they never will.

When you have the Irish 7s teams, U20 team and men's side all playing in foreign countries, it must be incredibly hard for the women to stomach this.

It may have never even taken place due to availability of players but for the IRFU to reject it without consulting the squad is shabby. They could have reduced it to a two match tour and sent a smaller squad down as an option. I'm sure there were options available to try and make something work.

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here.

Where would the support staff come from? The coaches, physios, admin, medics? Who organises the travel of a squad of 30 players when we already have 4 teams travelling simultaneously.

We have 2 Sevens teams competing the in the World Cup in San Francisco in 3 weeks and the same 2 teams competing this weekend in Paris.

I'm not trying to belittle Womens rugby. Nor am I insinuating that Sevens in more important.

But there is a huge crossover in Ireland between Sevens and Womens and logistically this would have been a huge ask

This is something that they had months and months to plan. Since Griggs came on there isn't a coaching crossover with 7s (that's Eddy/McDowell). Admin would benefit from economies of scale as most of the IRFU's admin are there at the same time. Physios/doctors would be no problem, they use the same physios and doctors as the provinces, I know exactly who would've gone from that area but no need to go into that level of detail.

All things that could have been sorted, more than enough time to do it if the appetite was there. It's not.

arsebiscuits1

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There has to be some intervention somewhere along the lines.

I know the IRFU are doing good work with the women's 7s at the moment, but the treatment the 15s players get is absolutely shocking.

Even decisions like playing their November series the day after the men's in Donnybrook. Why not have them play in the Aviva as an opener? And last years decision to reject RTE's offer of a primetime slot as a double header with the U20s and insisting the games have to be played on a Sunday.

How do you know sponsorship wasn't an issue here?

England Women and men are sponsored by O2. Handy there for a double header as there are no issues over branding.

Our girls are sponsored by Aon. A great sponsor by all accounts. How do we know that Vodafone didn't pipe up and demand they're the only visible brand on jerseys that day in the Aviva?

Before people think I am clutching at stwraws, I've done a lot of contracting in many places. And marking and branding people are that petty and that competitive.

Case in point: Rory McIlroy didn't go to the Olympics because he wouldn't be wearing Nike gear. Sponsorship is worth a lot of money. But they're the devil.

Again, I am just playing devils advocate here

arsebiscuits1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is something that they had months and months to plan. Since Griggs came on there isn't a coaching crossover with 7s (that's Eddy/McDowell). Admin would benefit from economies of scale as most of the IRFU's admin are there at the same time. Physios/doctors would be no problem, they use the same physios and doctors as the provinces, I know exactly who would've gone from that area but no need to go into that level of detail.

All things that could have been sorted, more than enough time to do it if the appetite was there. It's not.

Griggs is part of the Sevens team http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/41665.php#.WxlGFO4vxpg

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Ireland has just enjoyed the biggest bumper payday of rugby they've ever had. If they can't come up with the money for sending a squad down this summer, they never will.

When you have the Irish 7s teams, U20 team and men's side all playing in foreign countries, it must be incredibly hard for the women to stomach this.

It may have never even taken place due to availability of players but for the IRFU to reject it without consulting the squad is shabby. They could have reduced it to a two match tour and sent a smaller squad down as an option. I'm sure there were options available to try and make something work.

Especially when you consider their excuse is that they were "focusing on November" instead. Pretty sure they turned down a double header in the USA as well.

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Griggs is part of the Sevens team

Not full time

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

How do you know sponsorship wasn't an issue here?

England Women and men are sponsored by O2. Handy there for a double header as there are no issues over branding.

Our girls are sponsored by Aon. A great sponsor by all accounts. How do we know that Vodafone didn't pipe up and demand they're the only visible brand on jerseys that day in the Aviva?

Before people think I am clutching at stwraws, I've done a lot of contracting in many places. And marking and branding people are that petty and that competitive.

Case in point: Rory McIlroy didn't go to the Olympics because he wouldn't be wearing Nike gear. Sponsorship is worth a lot of money. But they're the devil.

Again, I am just playing devils advocate here

Ah lets not just go down the road of making things up out of thin air in the hopes there's a legitimate excuse

arsebiscuits1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not full time

Not full time no.

But it's a fair assumption that when this job was getting hashed out, they wanted him around as much of summer '18 as possible as the men and women 7s had already qualified for the World Cup where as a Womens tour down south was just a pipe dream.

IRFU would be chasing for Olympic qualification hard for the 7s too.

Before anyone thinks I am belittling any of this. I am not. I am disappointed that these events have transpired.

But I also think there is more to it than the big bad IRFU don't care about little old womens rugby.

I don't think this is black and white

arsebiscuits1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah lets not just go down the road of making things up out of thin air in the hopes there's a legitimate excuse

My below point that already explained that this is not outside the remit of clutching at straws.

Certainly I think it is more plausible than "who gives a ****e about the girls. Stick em in Donnybrook and hope they're grateful"

Out of interest, but could women's rugby fund itself independently? Is it profitable and do people actually go and support the games?

I was at some of the games in the RWC with my kids and interest levels seemed good, but I don't have a general picture of the sport for women in Ireland outside of this.

arsebiscuits1

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, but could women's rugby fund itself independently? Is it profitable and do people actually go and support the games?

I was at some of the games in the RWC with my kids and interest levels seemed good, but I don't have a general picture of the sport for women in Ireland outside of this.

Unlikely to be honest.

Womens internationals might get a max of 5000 people 5-6 times a year in it's current form.

Sponsorship would take in a small amount.

Then you'd have to factor in 15 full time contracts (minimum) at a conservative 30k a year.

Then employ coaches, support staff, travel costs etc etc etc

connemara man

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Not full time no.

But it's a fair assumption that when this job was getting hashed out, they wanted him around as much of summer '18 as possible as the men and women 7s had already qualified for the World Cup where as a Womens tour down south was just a pipe dream.

IRFU would be chasing for Olympic qualification hard for the 7s too.

Before anyone thinks I am belittling any of this. I am not. I am disappointed that these events have transpired.

But I also think there is more to it than the big bad IRFU don't care about little old womens rugby.

I don't think this is black and white

The fact they've let a situation arise where these things are factors is the over arching issue. Every time something happens all arguments should be with the bigger picture in mind.
Like the outrage isn't about this one decision this is the knock on from a series of decisions in the past

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Not full time no.

But it's a fair assumption that when this job was getting hashed out, they wanted him around as much of summer '18 as possible as the men and women 7s had already qualified for the World Cup where as a Womens tour down south was just a pipe dream.

IRFU would be chasing for Olympic qualification hard for the 7s too.

Before anyone thinks I am belittling any of this. I am not. I am disappointed that these events have transpired.

But I also think there is more to it than the big bad IRFU don't care about little old womens rugby.

I don't think this is black and white

No, Griggs wasn't contracted through the summer originally, so that wouldn't have been the case at all.

There's no need to guess here.

Anyway I'm in an extremely biased position having been close to it for too long. There's a reason current players and ex players and coaches, grand slam winners, are repeatedly coming out to complain. They're the ones to listen to. Talk to any of them and you'll see this has been going on a long time and it's not getting better. Hopefully Su Carty is actually listened to.

This excuse-making and blind rationalisation is to be expected but it's part of the problem.

Squidgy Black

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

How do you know sponsorship wasn't an issue here?

England Women and men are sponsored by O2. Handy there for a double header as there are no issues over branding.

Our girls are sponsored by Aon. A great sponsor by all accounts. How do we know that Vodafone didn't pipe up and demand they're the only visible brand on jerseys that day in the Aviva?

Before people think I am clutching at stwraws, I've done a lot of contracting in many places. And marking and branding people are that petty and that competitive.

Case in point: Rory McIlroy didn't go to the Olympics because he wouldn't be wearing Nike gear. Sponsorship is worth a lot of money. But they're the devil.

Again, I am just playing devils advocate here

It is a possibility, but again given the IRFU's history in these decisions, for example the double headers with the U20s being rejected due to "not being able to play matches on Friday evenings due to work commitments" despite 12 of their 18 previous games being played on Friday evenings, and just flat out saying Saturday evenings don't work for them.

And also it would depend on the sponsorship agreement with Vodafone. They would be rather stupid to pull a move like that, it wouldn't be infringing on any of their brand marketing or potential customers. Aon are a health and risk consulting business. And the women's jerseys are noticeably different to the men's so there's confusion in that regard.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, but could women's rugby fund itself independently? Is it profitable and do people actually go and support the games?

I was at some of the games in the RWC with my kids and interest levels seemed good, but I don't have a general picture of the sport for women in Ireland outside of this.

Well we don't know. But the entire system is set up to keep it in a place where it can't develop to a place where it could, so we'll never find out.

I wonder how much Sport Ireland and Olympic council funding the IRFU would be risking if women walked away and reformed their own union (which a lot of people don't realise is exactly what they had to do originally!). Maybe that's a question they don't want to be asked.

irishbucsfan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It is a possibility, but again given the IRFU's history in these decisions, for example the double headers with the U20s being rejected due to "not being able to play matches on Friday evenings due to work commitments" despite 12 of their 18 previous games being played on Friday evenings, and just flat out saying Saturday evenings don't work for them.

Don't forget they didn't ask the players about "work commitments" before stating that. Amazingly.

arsebiscuits1

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It is a possibility, but again given the IRFU's history in these decisions, for example the double headers with the U20s being rejected due to "not being able to play matches on Friday evenings due to work commitments" despite 12 of their 18 previous games being played on Friday evenings, and just flat out saying Saturday evenings don't work for them.

And also it would depend on the sponsorship agreement with Vodafone. They would be rather stupid to pull a move like that, it wouldn't be infringing on any of their brand marketing or potential customers. Aon are a health and risk consulting business. And the women's jerseys are noticeably different to the men's so there's confusion in that regard.

You're probably right tbh.

I just want to play devils advocate but with situations like this, there are a lot of things to consider.

When things like this come to light, it seems like every second person just jumps out and say "**** the establishment, they're a bunch of pricks"

And that is a position I find a bit disingenuous

Squidgy Black

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, but could women's rugby fund itself independently? Is it profitable and do people actually go and support the games?

I was at some of the games in the RWC with my kids and interest levels seemed good, but I don't have a general picture of the sport for women in Ireland outside of this.

Attendances tend to be in the region of 3-6000 depending on the magnitude of the game. There would be a strong following in some regards, but the casual fan wouldn't really take much interest in it.

Funding would be a different scenario altogether. The only real way women's 15s rugby in Ireland will progress is if it moves closer to professionalism. Which costs money, that the team wouldn't really be generating at the moment. Because of the lack of funding that goes into the team. It's a vicious cycle in that regards, and the IRFU just don't seem too bothered on changing it much.

As I said before, the 7s setup is pretty much the equivalent of the men's. Which is great to see, but must leave an awfully sour taste for the girls playing 15s.

Squidgy Black

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

You're probably right tbh.

I just want to play devils advocate but with situations like this, there are a lot of things to consider.

When things like this come to light, it seems like every second person just jumps out and say "**** the establishment, they're a bunch of pricks"

And that is a position I find a bit disingenuous

It's understandable, but in this case there's a reason and a history as to why people are jumping out and saying that. And most of the people doing it are those who were/are involved in the setup.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well we don't know. But the entire system is set up to keep it in a place where it can't develop to a place where it could, so we'll never find out.

I wonder how much Sport Ireland and Olympic council funding the IRFU would be risking if women walked away and reformed their own union (which a lot of people don't realise is exactly what they had to do originally!). Maybe that's a question they don't want to be asked.

The IRFU are in a funny situation. They are a governing sports body, but they need to very much act as a business to compete in the professional game.

If they are looking at the bottom line and seeing the women's game as an outlay and the men's game as paying the bills, they are going to make bad questionable or poor decisions relating to the women's game which appears to be happening.

It would seem like a waste for the women's game to break away as much of the functionality of the IRFU would be needlessly duplicated, but do they not have their own finance pool to draw from? Does anyone know how IRFU finances are handled in relation to the women's game when it comes to allocation of capital?

arsebiscuits1

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It's understandable, but in this case there's a reason and a history as to why people are jumping out and saying that. And most of the people doing it are those who were/are involved in the setup.

Not in my experience. Those involved - especially ex international and grassroots coaches - have much more of a right to feel aggrieved.

What I've seen mostly is people who've formed an opinion of "**** the IRFU - bunch of bastards" having only read the article headline

connemara man

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Not in my experience. Those involved - especially ex international and grassroots coaches - have much more of a right to feel aggrieved.

What I've seen mostly is people who've formed an opinion of "**** the IRFU - bunch of bastards" having only read the article headline

I've given examples of current players above one of whom is stepping out of the international set up because of how the game is treated.

I give the IRFU very little benefit of the doubt anymore and I know that. But their reasoning is poor about November and the 6 nations, more games is better than less games that's just a simple fact. They don't seem to have consulted the players re time (which wouldn't be an issue I'd say)

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Not in my experience. Those involved - especially ex international and grassroots coaches - have much more of a right to feel aggrieved.

What I've seen mostly is people who've formed an opinion of "**** the IRFU - bunch of bastards" having only read the article headline

Where are these people? Is this story really getting that sort of reach?

However most importantly if your experience doesn't include listening to current players, ex-players, ex-coaches, ex-captains then I'd suggest you should spend more time listening to them. Because it's taken a huge amount of courage for them to come forward, since the Legacy campaign, and speak out against their would-be employer and they deserve to be heard for that alone.

arsebiscuits1

connemara man wrote: »

I've given examples of current players above one of whom is stepping out of the international set up because of how the game is treated.

I give the IRFU very little benefit of the doubt anymore and I know that. But their reasoning is poor about November and the 6 nations, more games is better than less games that's just a simple fact. They don't seem to have consulted the players re time (which wouldn't be an issue I'd say)

Yeah, I won't argue with currently internationals feeling aggrieved. It's their passion and the bottom line of it is they're playing less games - which is obviously a pity