Have I missed something but I thought we already had a female side in Second Division??  I take it this team wasn't connected to the club as a whole??

Aberdeen Ladies were called Aberdeen in name only. The club helped them with strips, but they appointed their own coaches, organised their own games, etc.

 

Now Aberdeen Women, their new name, are officially part of the club, the new management team has been appointed by the club, and they will use the club facilities for training such as sports science and all that jazz. Once Kingsford is built they'll be training there too.

GWT spotted buying new pair of extra powerful binoculars today.....

Have I missed something but I thought we already had a female side in Second Division??  I take it this team wasn't connected to the club as a whole??

 

Aberdeen have actually been relegated twice in succession, which means they aren't in the SWPL at all. In both seasons they had points deductions which didn't help, but also some of their best players left for the central belt. You see, the players (mostly) are very young, and in many cases are at uni. Most want to do sports degrees of some sort, so move down to Stirling or Heriot Watt where they have great facilities and sign for a club nearby. Hibs have been the big benefactor of this. They go to Hibs, they get all the facilities at Oriam, they get Champions League football, play in cup finals, they get noticed and, as has happened recently to eight Hibs players, they  have get offered full-time contracts with big clubs in England. It's a pretty good pathway to playing professional football.

 

With Aberdeen players now getting to use the club's facilities, with Kingsford on the horizon, the hope naturally is that will be a big carrot to attracting players and getting them to stay. But as above, they're actually in SWFL Division 1 North. Get promoted and they go into SWPL 2, then hopefully back to SWPL 1.

 

 

Many will inevitably ask why Aberdeen as a club need to give a shit. Well, women's football is only going to get bigger. I predict the women's champions league will grow and it won't be long until there is serious prize money on offer (winners at moment get €250,000 which is pocket change compared to men's version, but like I say I can see that going up rapidly). In that case, a club like Aberdeen might find a successful women's team to be quite profitable.

I don't think there's a big future for women's football. The standard is shit.

^^^^^^ this

 

The standard at the top level of women's football is roughly that of an under 13s boys team. Some of the shit that occurs during their games is pure comedy gold but for the most part is a total snoozefest. Sadly in the name of political correctness it's going together ever increasing TV coverage.

They have to start somewhere!!

I'm hopefully gonna go to France for the Women's World Cup in June 

Hebrew, is your avatar a Mark Rothko?

It possibly is can't remember who the artist was had it for years

Lost one of my Under 14's (mixed team) girls in the summer to Bristol City. She is now playing for England U16's. Her older sister was already part of the Bristol City set up and I have it on good authority from the lad I coach Under 12's (girls) with that she was better than every player in her school year (he's a PE teacher there).

 

I picked up a goalie (who is also part of the Bristol City set up for my Under 14's) in the summer. They train 3 times a week there and as she is one of 3 keepers, is encouraged to play mixed too. In order to help her improve. I think she is almost as good a shot stopper as the lad I have, her distribution is better. She's still too stuck in her penalty area for my liking though.

 

We have two girls in our Under 12 (girls) side, who I think will end up at Bristol City or similar, in the near future. They play for one of the local multi-side per age group clubs for their A team. One is a keeper, probably the best I've seen at that level boy or girl locally. An opinion shared by a coach of another local girls team, who also coaches in Swindon Town Academy set up. The other has the potential to be better than the one I lost from my Under 14's.

 

Anyway point is girls up until 5 years ago could only play mixed till Under 8 or maybe even younger and only in the last season increased beyond Under 16. Beyond that it was girls only and that was stiffling development. They were hardly being challenged by other girls (often just starting out) when they had come from dominating in the mixed game.

 

In addition the only further development they could get was playing County, although it was bringing together the best from that area it was maybe once a week to once a month, this has increased in quantity and I think quality in recent years. Plus we are seeing these academy set ups which are mirroring the boys.

 

Personally I can only see the improving drastically in the next 5 to 10 years. 

 

Personally I can only see the improving drastically in the next 5 to 10 years.

 

Great to hear kids getting active and good on you for helping to encourage and develop them.

 

Like women's rugby though, I can't help seeing them as vastly inferior technicians, almost like they're not built to excel at the sport. They haven't exactly been contributing to "the beautiful game" so the standard really needs to improve drastically in the years ahead. I find it totally unwatchable at present.

There was a crowd of 48,000 at a women's game last night, Atletico Bilbao women v Atletico Madrid women in a cup quarter final. The biggest crowd the men's team has had all season is 46,000.

 

The women's FA Cup final had 45,000 at it last season. To put that into perspective, the men's Scottish Cup final in 2015 between Inverness & Falkirk had 37,000 at it.

 

The standard is likely irrelevant. People support a team even if they're poor, and likewise people will support women's football whether they're as good as the boys or not. The main problem in Scotland isn't the standard (Hibs & Glasgow City served up some good games last season), it's more the matchday experience is really poor.

Aberdeen Women ?

 

Surely not.

 

 

Anyway, Standard was only s'hitey because of the lack of numbers.

The talented ones really were talented.

As for the rest, well it takes a fair bit of dedication to be in a team that plays in a Scottish league.

It's not just pay for the pitch or referee, there's a lot of traveling involved.

 

 

I don't know if women's football has much interest around here, but thought it might be worth it's own thread throughout the season.

 

For the uninitiated, Aberdeen were known as Aberdeen Ladies and were a mere affiliate of the club. They were relegated twice in succession to the point where they were outside of the Scottish Women's Premier League.

 

Then last summer the club took the team in-house, they changed to Aberdeen Women, had a new management team and began to take the whole thing a lot more seriously.

 

They romped the SWFL North last season, and also took some big scalps in the Scottish Cup, making it as far as the quarters before losing 1-0 to Rangers.

 

They begin this season in SWPL 2 as favourites to be promoted to SWPL 1. Hamilton, Kilmarnock and Dundee United will be their main rivals for the promotion. There's one automatic place and a play-off spot.

 

Yesterday they played their first game of the season in the SWPL Cup, and beat Hearts (who won SWPL 2 last season) 2-1 at Cormack Park.

 

The goals from that win are here:

No interest from me. Ever. The product isn't worth watching. It will be of interest to women, the families of the players, pervert voyeur types and saddos but to anyone who understands the game, women's fitba has zero appeal. It's a hobby for odd girls and there is zero business potential. They're even showing women's rugby and women's cricket these days. This is the gender equality lobby gone mad.

No interest from me. Ever. The product isn't worth watching. It will be of interest to women, the families of the players, pervert voyeur types and saddos but to anyone who understands the game, women's fitba has zero appeal. It's a hobby for odd girls and there is zero business potential. They're even showing women's rugby and women's cricket these days. This is the gender equality lobby gone mad.

 

Obviously, I don't take any of your posts seriously, I just enjoy them for what they are - an old eccentric trying to survive in the modern world.

 

However, "zero business potential" is worth picking up on.

 

The Champions League is being revamped and from next year there will be some serious money being ploughed into it, from TV deals, sponsorship and UEFA funding.

 

Scotland will likely have two places and clubs will be able to make some serious profit from being involved.

 

From an Aberdeen point of view, the costs of running a women's team are very little, and the potential with the growth of women's football across the world is actually huge. So a successful Aberdeen women's team could actually be a nice little earner for the club in years to come, especially with the Atlanta link-up.

I'm with RS on this one. I wouldn't go to watch Albion Rovers v Elgin City. Why? Because the product is shite. But it's a million times better than wife's football. I admit I did watch a few of the women's World Cup gamers last year....purely as there was nothing else on at the time. Some of it was pure comedy gold. Embarrassingly bad and these were meant to be the "elite" of the women's game.

 

I remember going back 6 or 7 seasons. Arsenal were the English women's league champions. They played a friendly in their pre-season against a boys' U15 side from Merseyside. Not a particularly good boys team either...just a bog standard side in a local league. The boys were 4 up at half time and the game was abandoned with nearly 15 minutes to go with the boys leading 6-0.

 

As for our women's side. Naturally I hope they do well. But I'll never watch them.

 

Albion v. Elgin won't be as good as the fitba we get on the telly but it is indeed infinitely better than women attempting to play the beautiful game. But as I said, only people who understand fitba know how commercially unviable the women's game is and always will be, even after the joke organisation that is UEFA tries to throw money at it. It will be championed by fools, perverts, voyeurs and saddos and under the joke that is gender equality, it might even make the news occasionally. But get those women to fuck commenting on the male game. Bianca's lovely but most of them are a fucking travesty, particularly the Scottish weirdos.

Slick City fitba is always worth a watch,but agree on the womens fitba,a no watcher for me(more so after watching that first goal ^^).But if theres a demand for it elsewhere,good luck to them

 

As far as female commentators go,I find them a hard listen,maybe the pitch of their voices or something.Nae doubting they can be as knowledgeable as anyone,but its when they try to emulate the over enthusiasm of some of the seasoned pros it becomes a turn off.Just be yourself,why copy your Alan Greens,or our own Liam McLeod with their spittle covered mics

Aberdeen Women is a daft name.

Better left as Aberdeen Ladies.

 

Were the Primadonnas in years gone bye.

No interest from me. Ever. The product isn't worth watching. It will be of interest to women, the families of the players, pervert voyeur types and saddos but to anyone who understands the game, women's fitba has zero appeal. It's a hobby for odd girls and there is zero business potential. They're even showing women's rugby and women's cricket these days. This is the gender equality lobby gone mad.

 

Happy to prove you wrong Rocket. I’m a pervert and a saddo but I’ve got zero interest in wimmin’s football.

Happy to prove you wrong Rocket. I’m a pervert and a saddo but I’ve got zero interest in wimmin’s football.

 

The promotion of women's football, like rugby and cricket, is based on values that are flawed.

 

Equality of opportunity does not equal equality in performance.

 

Facts are indisputable. Men and women ARE different. The culture of denial of this simple truth is agenda-driven and it's already leading to discomfort and confusion. That we - both sexes - can enter the same toilets in the revamped Art Gallery is disturbing enough for adults but listen to the girls at the NE schools who have to endure the same "equality". Fortunately my kids are old enough to have passed through school before this madness came in. Encouraging kids to entertain changing their gender however is a step beyond the pale. It's like giving 10% of parking spaces for the 2% who are disabled. The transgender is a human but he/she is less than a fraction of 0.1% historically. Now everyone has the "right" to deny their biology and this goes way beyond the "rights" of the small minority who were wired up wrong that they fancy the same sex. There have always been oddballs and weirdos and whilst they shouldn't have to live in the closet, the minorities shouldn't be granted the front and centre ground over the vast majority of us.

Let's agree that he has the right to have babies, even if he doesn't have a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans.

The equal pay thing is another minefield and I'm jumping in. I'm 100% in agreement that, for example, in an office a man and a woman who do the same job should be paid equally. Obviously. That's a no brainer. But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game. And it would be exactly the same with football if the women somehow gain parity. As an athlete or sports person your pay should reflect your level and your influence on the sport. Women play best of 3 set matches in Tennis; but not because they're not capable of playing 5 sets because of course they are. They're athletes and look after themselves. But the painful truth is that next to no one wants to watch a female 5 setter.

 

Pay all athletes/sports people what they're worth regardless of gender. That is true equality.

The equal pay thing is another minefield and I'm jumping in. I'm 100% in agreement that, for example, in an office a man and a woman who do the same job should be paid equally. Obviously. That's a no brainer. But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game. And it would be exactly the same with football if the women somehow gain parity. As an athlete or sports person your pay should reflect your level and your influence on the sport. Women play best of 3 set matches in Tennis; but not because they're not capable of playing 5 sets because of course they are. They're athletes and look after themselves. But the painful truth is that next to no one wants to watch a female 5 setter.

 

Pay all athletes/sports people what they're worth regardless of gender. That is true equality.

 

Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit?

 

Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing).

 

Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City).

 

Where I don't see any of the above being an issue is in women's fitba. They don't operate within the same league, the Scottish Cup isn't run in parallel with the Scottish Cup - Women's draw, nor the World Cup in parallel with the women's. If that were to become the case then there could be merit in pay parity. The bottom line is that clubs like the dons have seen an avenue in which to make money from the women's game. They've seen a market. If it comes to it that AFC have employees working full-time, playing the same number of games, in the top league of their gender side of a draw then I think AFC will have to - at some point - face the issue that a man in their employment gets X amount to do their job, with a women getting Y to do the same role. Much the same as every office does. We've all likely been in a situation where a worker (male or female) gets paid more/less/same than us despite doing a worse/better job but they have been there longer or have the same role but are shitter at it. I can't think of a good example of a company where one division will get paid more than another for doing the same job simply because that division makes more money (I'm sure it happens). I'm playing devil's advocate slightly of course, but it's clearly not a clear cut issue (and I disagree entirely about tennis), and it would be interesting to see if it stands up in court, when the inevitable time comes. I'd like to see AFC birds have their own separate legal entity, leagues and association and so on to be sure that the two were segregated completely. Even more so when it comes to setting up the cheeks version of mens-bigotry-lite - I see a massive opportunity for the girls to do something completely different to the men. Where I see "gender equality" being a thing is in the assimilation of AFC girls and boys at all. I'm not sure, however, if it's being done to promote gender equality or as an attempt to make sure that a market is not missed out on. I'd say that it's probably the latter and so, in the true traditions of capitalism, you get what you deserve in that regard.