Emily stars for England

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:42 pm

DA is exceptionally good at telling us why not.

Would that he were to turn his talents into tellings us how!

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:39 pm

Tiger Eye wrote:It does seem strange that Leicester are the only club who don't actually have a womens team. Bath ladies do quite well and the Wasps ladies. I think it should be looked into in the future.

As for womens rugby crowd attendance, I am sure the spirit of Welford Road would shine through and people in their thousands would attend, it needs to be given a chance and - to be taken more seriously.

Tiger Eye, Tigers are not the only club who don't have a women's team! Plenty of professional clubs do not have a womens side.

As for the "Welford Road factor", I honestly believe that it wouldn't lead to a big attendance. You'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred turning up regularly (even if it was free entry). You many scrape 1000 for a one-off match based on novelty value but not regularly. Crowds turn up for 1st XV games & A games but not really for any other Tigers events.
For example I could usually count the number of spectators (ie not coaches or family members) at Tigers Academy games on my fingers & toes! Womens rugby would be little different.

And Bill, I have no intention of turning my talents to telling you how it should be done as I don't believe it should be done in the first place!

Teams like Stoneygate, LFE & other womens culbs in the area do a commendable job in the first place & I don't feel that Tigers should force their way in, steal a team from someone else & parade it as their own.

Womens rugby needs wider support nationally, but that should not be done by effectively robbing existing clubs of their successful sides!

I also not that so far not one person (except for me) has admitted to watching even one single live game of womens rugby...ever!

You all seem very keen to get a Tigers branded ladies team and expect large crowds if it ever happened & yet not one person has admitted to seeing a single game of womens rugby live yet. I think that says it all.

Tiger Eye · Post by **Tiger Eye** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:53 pm

I watched the World Cup ladies final match between England and NZ! Great game.

and I was not alone in looking forward to that match. (both male and female)

I have seen many live womens rugby matches, perhaps there is more of them where I'm from.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:26 am

Fleabane wrote:

Dave A, a very negative post!

Part of the Tigers ethos is to promote rugby at all levels, as evidenced by the courses, Academy etc.

There are now courses for girls, run alongside the traditional boys courses. Outstanding boys are selected for further developmemt and the Academy, so why can't the same principles apply to girls? A long term project maybe, but we are a leading team and should be part of the development of the womens game.

I agree with this entirely.

DA wrote:

Fleabane, Tigers are helping to promote the womens game by not setting up a team & robbing players from other existing local clubs!

This is appalling logic DA. Even politicians are better than this.

One of the biggest problems in society today is the number of people, especially female youngsters, who are overweight and lacking in basic fitness and self confidence. Rugby is a sport that prides itself in being suitable for youngsters of different body shapes and sizes, and is also far more varied and interesting than other (roundy-ball) team games.

Surely an organisation such as Tigers could do something to help. They already do quite a lot with the community tag rugby programme. How can children, especially girls, follow on from this level?

We need some positive action. Just saying 'no-one else (older girls) will want to play rugby' is sheer laziness. Tigers have the facilities, the knowledge and the motivational enthusiasm to develop the sport much more effectively in this community area. Come on Tigers, you are supposed to be the best rugby club in the country. Prove it!

Tiger Eye · Post by **Tiger Eye** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:31 am

Well said Pete.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:27 am

Pete, you are misquoting me.

I never said that "no-one else (older girls) will want to play rugby".

What I said was that there is not enough room in either the womens game or in the county for another womens team. Even if there were, the only waty that Tigers caould avoid starting at the very bottom rung of the ladder would be to poach an entire team from another local side which would not benefit anyone.

There is already a route for girls to follow from tag rugby as there are already local clubs with womens teams. However many of the girls drop out of the sport once the tag element goes & it is replaced by full contact, Having a Tigers ladies team would not change that.

Out of interest Pete, would you regularly go to watch womens rugby if Tigers had a team?

Do you regularly go to watch other Tigers games below the A/Development side?

And why the sudden interest in the womens game anyway? Is it just because a local lass was mentioned in the Mercury or have you always been a silent champion of the womens game?

fleabane · Post by **fleabane** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:29 am

You have stated the position better than I, Pete.

DA, the world would be a better place if we looked positively at how to get things done, not at easy reasons for not trying.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:43 am

Fleabane, the way to do it positively is to promote the existing game & the existing teams, not to steal an existing, successful team from an existing, successful club & rebrand it as "Tigers" just so that we as a club have one more feather in our cap.

Quite simply, the interest in the womens game is minimal, not just locally but nationally & internationally as the standard isn't anywhere near as high as the mens game. (I would put the international tier of the womens game on a par with mid-table ND2 mens teams personally.)

I would love to hear your views on how Tigers stealing someone else's team would benefit the womens game in this country & how you beleive that a crowd could be guaranteed when our own (and highly successful & established) Academy side struggles to reach high double figures for its own regular home matches, despite free entry, mentions in the 1st XV programme & fixtures & articles on the website !

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:09 am

DA wrote:

I would love to hear your views on how Tigers stealing someone else's team would benefit the womens game in this country & how you beleive that a crowd could be guaranteed when our own (and highly successful & established) Academy side struggles to reach high double figures for its own regular home matches, despite free entry, mentions in the 1st XV programme & fixtures & articles on the website !

DA, you said I misquoted you. But you are still persisting in saying the only way Tigers could form a ladies team is by stealing all the players from elsewhere (which incidentally the Tigers men's team do - whilst their academy players leave!). Tigers are in a unique position within the local area. They command attention from the media and its large readership, as well as from thousands of Tigers supporters, including many younger females. They should use this highly favoured position to promote the playing of rugby with both boys and girls, equally, especially in the light of so many overwight, under fit youngsters locally.

Secondly you demand that a female team would require a large number of paying supporters, whilst recognising that male academy teams can play with few. This is discrimination!

Thirdly I have brought up this topic several times before on this website, which you have conveniently forgotten about.

Your initials DA are unsuitable. 'Da' means yes in russian. You need initials more like 'NO'!

Rizzo · Post by **Rizzo** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:28 am

Secondly you demand that a female team would require a large number of paying supporters, whilst recognising that male academy teams can play with few. This is discrimination!

as a female, I don't see this in any way as "discrimination" - simply fact. DA is not "demanding" that a prospective female team has a large number of supporters, just saying that without supporters in relatively large numbers it wouldn't appear economically sound as a prospect to the Club.

I regularly feel disappointed at the low attendances for A league and development games, despite the fact that we probably get higher support than many other clubs with A league teams etc.

Personally, whilst I applaud Emily and all the women rugby players/teams, I can't see it being financially or in any other way worth it at Tigers. People simply wouldn't bother coming.

k1 · Post by k1 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:43 am

Rizzo wrote:

I can't see it being financially or in any other way worth it at Tigers. People simply wouldn't bother coming.

Self-fulfilling prophecy? We won't bother with a Tigers team for the few that might watch because there wouldn't be that many?

DA, I don't disagree but, as Bill says, you're very good at pointing out the "why nots". As my question above implies, having the "Tigers brand" associated with a women's club would be more likely to boost viewing figures and interest than retaining a LFE team, that very few outside of Leicester would have any knowledge of.

I agree that interest currently is minimal. I agree that this would be unlikely to change in the near future, particularly if, as you say, "Tigers" would have to start from the bottom rung. But as a long-term endeavour would it not be more likely that a Tigers team would attract more attention and spark more interest among youngsters than one of the local teams you quote?

Kinoulton · Post by **Kinoulton** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:54 am

Fact is, and this may seem shallow, a decent enough ladies rugby team called, say, Smallsville Ladies, playing against Peat Bog Swamp Donkeys, might attract the proverbial one man and his dog.

Exactly the same two teams re-branded as Leicester Tigers Ladies and Gloucester Ladies would attract more than one man and his dog, simply because of the association with their illustrious male counterparts.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:15 am

Pete, I never said that the team would require lots of paying supporters. I said that it would need plenty of supporters (whether free or paying) in order to justify the effort of creating a team in the first place.

The Academy is different in that it doesn't need supporters to survive as its purpose is to generate players for the professional team. A ladies team would not be feeding a professional side (as the ladies game is amateur).

We would need to steal an existing team if Tigers were to avoid having to work their way up from the very lowest level of the womens game. No-one would come to see Tigresses v Old Muggletonians Women. They probably wouldn't even come to see Tigresses v Bath Ladies!

I also notice that once again you have failed to answer two of my questions aimed directly at you:

Would you regularly go to watch womens rugby if Tigers had a team?

Do you regularly go to watch other Tigers games below the A/Development side?

k1, to be honest, no, having a Tigers team/brand for a ladies team would not "boost viewing figures" or at least ot to a level to justify the effort involved. (Going from 50 supporters to 200 wouldn't be worth the creation & investment in an entire team in my opinion, especially not ehn it is an extra unneccessary distrction!)

Also, it is worth noting that I have this morning received an email from a former women's rugby coach on the subject of a Tigers team and he wrote as follows:

"As a former womenâ€™s rugby coach I would like to wholeheartedly agree with your posts on the offy! There is no way that Tigers could form a womenâ€™s section without impacting on the other teams in the area and it would be folly to attempt to do so."

PinkLady · Post by **PinkLady** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:27 am

Totally agree kinoulton. For women's rugby to progress it needs the support, credibility, and promotion that big clubs like tigers can offer. It also needs the facilities and experience that comes with a big club. There may be no 'money' in it at the moment, but is this the point? Or is it about developing the game at all levels, and for both sexes? I don't see the argument about poaching, surely what brings excellence is competition, and competition at the highest level - surely that is something that tigers is all about.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:53 am

My point about poaching is as follows:

Tigers Ladies team would need to start from the bottom rung of the game.

The only way to fast-track up the leagues (and thereofre generate interest in the sport) would be to poach players from other local teams. It would have to be local teams as the women's game is amateur & players wouldn't move cities from their already established & successful clubs just to play for a Tigers-branded amateur team.

Therefore local teams would suffer for the Tigers team to be a "success", and even then this would take years as moving up the leagues would be slow.

The faster option would be to poach an entire side from another local club & that too would be detrimental to the local game.