Womens' rugby Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

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

Squidgy Black

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

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

Without being funny, but how do you know that? Obviously players who were involved have more of a right to feel aggrieved, but anyone who's supported the women's team, or followed any of the actions by the IRFU in regards to this team is more than entitled to express their frustration.

3 of the quoted tweets that were put into this thread are from current players speaking out against it.

I know you've said you're playing the devil's advocate, but at this stage it's just making excuses and pandering for the IRFU. And it's one of the problems that's a cause of the issues with the IRFU, because people keeping saying "ah sure look they do such a great job with the men's team, there must be a legitimate excuse for their decisions."

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I know loads of people in sports who have come out and said the same thing about their sporting bodies.

The sports council gave massive grants to sports people who were effectively professional due to sponsorship deals while the rest of us struggled with pittance despite training just as much and competing just as hard.

I remember asking for money from my sports body to attend a competition shortly after I medal'd in a major championship and I was given €100 towards my flights. I was disgusted and it was one of the things that contributed to me retiring relatively early.

In hindsight though I look back and realise that I made absolutely no money at all for the sports body or the sport. Not that I was unsuccessful, but the public interest wasn't there. The people who got the bigger grant's didn't probably add much to the coffers either but that's the nature of sport and life.

How much of it is down to gender and how much of it is down to ROI is probably very debatable.

It would seem to me that the women's game in rugby in Ireland should be run under the IRFU but decision making given over and a pot of cash given over to a separate executive. Maybe this is already the case, but surely self funding and determination would alleviate the finger pointing and if that side of the sport becomes more profitable they can attend more fixtures?

arsebiscuits1

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Without being funny, but how do you know that? Obviously players who were involved have more of a right to feel aggrieved, but anyone who's supported the women's team, or followed any of the actions by the IRFU in regards to this team is more than entitled to express their frustration.

3 of the quoted tweets that were put into this thread are from current players speaking out against it.

I know you've said you're playing the devil's advocate, but at this stage it's just making excuses and pandering for the IRFU. And it's one of the problems that's a cause of the issues with the IRFU, because people keeping saying "ah sure look they do such a great job with the men's team, there must be a legitimate excuse for their decisions."

I don't want to seem like I am pandering anyone. The end of the day there are disappointed players who wont get to play.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

IMaybe this is already the case, but surely self funding and determination would alleviate the finger pointing and if that side of the sport becomes more profitable they can attend more fixtures?

Which aspects of Irish rugby are actually self-funding? The provinces are all loss making right?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I know loads of people in sports who have come out and said the same thing about their sporting bodies.

The sports council gave massive grants to sports people who were effectively professional due to sponsorship deals while the rest of us struggled with pittance despite training just as much and competing just as hard.

I remember asking for money from my sports body to attend a competition shortly after I medal'd in a major championship and I was given €100 towards my flights. I was disgusted and it was one of the things that contributed to me retiring relatively early.

In hindsight though I look back and realise that I made absolutely no money at all for the sports body or the sport. Not that I was unsuccessful, but the public interest wasn't there. The people who got the bigger grant's didn't probably add much to the coffers either but that's the nature of sport and life.

How much of it is down to gender and how much of it is down to ROI is probably very debatable.

It would seem to me that the women's game in rugby in Ireland should be run under the IRFU but decision making given over and a pot of cash given over to a separate executive. Maybe this is already the case, but surely self funding and determination would alleviate the finger pointing and if that side of the sport becomes more profitable they can attend more fixtures?

Well if you're talking about ROI and women's sports you should look at really the only piece of evidence we actually have of equal investment over a sustained period.

Title IX in the USA forced sports to be treated (somewhat) equally. Now a lot of people sidestepped that, universities got creative with their scholarships, but US Soccer embraced it and invested in womens' soccer. Really one of the only examples of equal investment we have. Last year the womens' team made more revenue than the mens' team.

That's a huge source of strength for them now. Not only do they have some pretty exceptional minds joining their governance (now that the first generation of real pros are retiring), but the union has been able to spread its risks far more protecting them against things like not qualifying for world cups. Now its something that was basically forced upon them, but its become a source of pride.

Other sporting bodies are looking at this and realising where they need to go. In rugby the French and English have copped on, the Ozzies and Kiwis have copped on. As of yet, we have not. Its going to take a generation for us to get the results but that's supposed to be the job and benefit of having a non-profit NGB in control of the sport. Instead of quietly cutting resources and pissing off a grand slam generation who can see with their own eyes how little their contribution was valued.


(Sorry as for your last paragraph, the decision making is done ultimately by the same group as the mens'. Eddy and Nucifora are the main decision-makers there along with the executives)

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well if you're talking about ROI and women's sports you should look at really the only piece of evidence we actually have of equal investment over a sustained period.

Title IX in the USA forced sports to be treated (somewhat) equally. Now a lot of people sidestepped that, universities got creative with their scholarships, but US Soccer embraced it and invested in womens' soccer. Really one of the only examples of equal investment we have. Last year the womens' team made more revenue than the mens' team.

That's a huge source of strength for them now. Not only do they have some pretty exceptional minds joining their governance (now that the first generation of real pros are retiring), but the union has been able to spread its risks far more protecting them against things like not qualifying for world cups. Now its something that was basically forced upon them, but its become a source of pride.

Other sporting bodies are looking at this and realising where they need to go. In rugby the French and English have copped on, the Ozzies and Kiwis have copped on. As of yet, we have not. Its going to take a generation for us to get the results but that's supposed to be the job and benefit of having a non-profit NGB in control of the sport. Instead of quietly cutting resources and pissing off a grand slam generation who can see with their own eyes how little their contribution was valued.


(Sorry as for your last paragraph, the decision making is done ultimately by the same group as the mens'. Eddy and Nucifora are the main decision-makers there along with the executives)

I don't doubt there are more examples of this, the entire point of investment is that it can lead to greater returns. There are probably examples of where greater investment also had zero impact on output in sports for both genders.

I just think the situation appears to have become quite toxic, I think in that situation the best thing to do is give autonomy and allow stakeholders to make decisions and see how things play out.

irishbucsfan

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ireland-legends-express-outrage-after-women-s-tour-rejected-1.3523131?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Fiona Coughlan and Sophie Spence had a bit to say. Seems very few willing to stay quiet on the issue any more. A year ago no one was willing to talk like this publicly about the problems.

“Is that why we play sport, because it’s commercially viable?” asked Coghlan, who captained Ireland to a Grand Slam in 2013. “The men’s rugby team generate a huge amount of income but they didn’t until they went fully professional around 1999, 2000. Did we ever say back then, ‘We shouldn’t support men’s rugby as they are not bringing money in because they are not professionals?’

“I get why the tour was turned down even though accommodation was offered. It’s a financial thing. But coming out saying it was to focus on November internationals . . . If there was some strategy around it I’d be okay with that but there is no strategy around it.

“The women’s team don’t bring in any money, I get all that, but if there was just a little more disclosure and people knew where the women’s game sat within the IRFU this would be easier for people to take.

“If they do come out with ‘the girls might not be able to take time off work,’ it should be noted that nobody asked them. The girls would only be delighted to use their annual holidays to go over to Australia and play a three test series.”

The 2017 women’s World Cup, held in Dublin and Belfast, concluded eight months ago but subsequent events already show the tournament as the sport’s launch pad towards professionalism. However, the IRFU, thus far, have decided not to pursue the same path as the Back Ferns, the Red Roses and even the Wallaroos.

The IRFU’s review of the tournament, when Ireland finished a disappointing eighth, was not relayed to the players and when the “part time casual” advertisement for a new coach caused uproar a committee under Mary Quinn and Su Carty was formed to recommend a future strategy for the game in Ireland.

The recommendations of the Quinn/Carty committee were submitted in March but will not be published.

“Those recommendations now are being considered with a view to pushing them into the women’s part of the overall IRFU strategy,” said Quinn, the only female member of the IRFU committee. “We are hoping a separate action plan will evolve from that.”

“I don’t understand why they wouldn’t publish it,” said Coghlan. “If you are not honest about where you are at and where you want to go I don’t think we are going to see the progress we need. If are reviewing something you have to look at the ugly parts, you can’t hide them away. People are giving out anyway, so let them give out about the truth.

“At the moment I feel like all we are doing is fire fighting. There is no path. Whether it comes in this review, I don’t know.”

CIARAN_BOYLE

I like how the women are asking for transparency and honesty rather than support per se.

Ie tell us the truth we understand the finances being too hard or the support staff arent available to do this but dont give us meaningless platitudes about focusing on something else.

irishbucsfan

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I like how the women are asking for transparency and honesty rather than support per se.

Ie tell us the truth we understand the finances being too hard or the support staff arent available to do this but dont give us meaningless platitudes about focusing on something else.

That's really what they've been asking for for a long time.

An example I know of was that before the world cup the IRFU announced they would be increasing funding for women's rugby by 500k. That was a headline they pushed out to the media in order to take advantage of the bandwagon and goodwill generated by the world cup in Ireland. It sounded great. Even I read the story and thought it sounded great, in my naivety! The girls knew straight away they would never see that money (instead it'd be funnelled into 7s etc).

Then straight after the competition, sure enough, they see their full-time head coach being replaced by a "part-time casual" position. Which they discovered after zero consultation through the media. They see the IRFU telling people the girls 'weren't available for Friday night games' despite the IRFU not asking any of them. They see Carty's report swept under the carpet. There's absolutely no trust there and there's very little reason for there to be any.

vapor trails

I consider myself to be a fairly big fan of Rugby. I live near to Ashbourne. When the women's team were playing their 6 nations matches in Ashbourne. I never really felt motivated to go down to watch a game. In hindsight, I think it was to do with the fact that I didn't fancy going to the matches because I felt like they were short in Pace, Power, and skill. Also maybe a bit of the testosterone-fuelled confrontational components to the game.

Now you can hate on that view as much as you want. But whether people like it or not that's why most lads and probably most women don't go to these matches or watch them on TV. Every metric to do with the consumption of women's rugby indicates something like what I said above. There is no amount of investment that will change those fundamentals.