|
Post by Eaststandboy on Dec 6, 2017 11:17:33 GMT
The club have released a statement confirming they have not applied for a WSL licence for the next two seasons. Does this mean technically the Womens team will not play next season, should we not get a licence? www.oufc.co.uk/news/2017/december/wsl-statement/
|
|
|
Post by nick68 on Dec 6, 2017 11:41:55 GMT
The club have released a statement confirming they have not applied for a WSL licence for the next two seasons. Does this mean technically the Womens team will not play next season, should we not get a licence? www.oufc.co.uk/news/2017/december/wsl-statement/I think if they don't apply they would drop to a lower level in the women's pyramid eg. The FA Women's Premier League. Don't actually know so just making that assumption.
|
|
|
Post by mooro on Dec 6, 2017 16:08:46 GMT
To be cynical, this appears to give the opportunity for the top flight to sail away into the distance and be the public/TV face of womens club football in England, without that pesky second tier with the same initials.
AS above, I'd love to think that we could play at the top table but realistically there was little chance that we;d get promotion in the current setup, so would it be the right place to position ourselves at this time.
What it may mean however is that the WNL will now become the peak of the 'real' pyramid (pro game aside), rather than part of the elite setup. It will be great if we are able to continue as an established member of this league, but we perhasp have to be more careful we do not get relegated a level or two in the coming seasons, and lose any status we had built up within the game.
|
|
|
Post by plonker on Dec 6, 2017 16:51:34 GMT
As your thread has given me an excuse, ESB, I'll ramble a bit more.
I don't know how promotion and relegation will be handled to and from the WSL. I heard in an interview it will happen, but don't know how that will be implemented. If you can't meet the criteria, you aren't able to become part of the league, so basically results don't matter unless you have the money and structure in place to back it up. So in a sense, it almost becomes a closed league. And if, for example, a team isn't able to gain promotion because they aren't able to go full-time and meet various other off-field criteria, does that mean the team who finished bottom of the WSL will be spared relegation? I honestly don't know. If someone has an answer, or wants to share an opinion, I'd love to hear it.
As much as I would like to see 14 full-time teams, I think organic growth would have been a better approach. Slower, sure, but more sustainable. Offer better support, work with teams to gain more commercial revenue, give more funding if needs be, and I'm sure a lot more teams would have invested in women's football going full-time. Whereas this strategy feels more forced, and in turn more high risk to me. We saw Notts County fold just before the start of a season. Yeovil have been very vocal about the financial difficulties involved with going full-time. I'd hate to see more teams fold completely because they become overstretched trying to meet the requirements that were given at very short notice to teams.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Dec 6, 2017 17:00:52 GMT
Do any womens teams have enough supporters to go full time? Or is it being funded by rich owners/prem clubs?
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Dec 6, 2017 17:26:27 GMT
Do any womens teams have enough supporters to go full time? Or is it being funded by rich owners/prem clubs? Being funded by the clubs currently although I believe crowds at clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City are growing. Nowhere near sufficient to fund the teams yet though if the Notts Co story is anything to go by.
|
|
|
Post by eraser on Dec 6, 2017 19:43:39 GMT
This is another hair brained scheme by the FA to try and manufacture an England national team.. All players have to be full time pros and the clubs have to have an academy. So, just like the premier league, there will be an unbreachable gulf and little opportunity for any ladies who aren't signed by the big 4 again! Joke.
|
|
|
Post by concretebob on Dec 6, 2017 19:47:02 GMT
Does seem like the FA would rather have women's teams of premier league clubs than the likes of Yeovil, us and Barnet (well London bees in ladies football) - they are probably more marketable or some other money driven nonsense.
See also - Manchester City taking Doncaster's place in WSL 1 a couple of years back.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Dec 6, 2017 20:16:21 GMT
This is another hair brained scheme by the FA to try and manufacture an England national team.. All players have to be full time pros and the clubs have to have an academy. So, just like the premier league, there will be an unbreachable gulf and little opportunity for any ladies who aren't signed by the big 4 again! Joke. I assume this won't affect us having an Academy. I find it bizarre that Man Utd have an Academy but no longer have a ladies team (not that it was ever at the top end anyway) especially with City having both.
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on Dec 7, 2017 17:23:50 GMT
A good read from an ex player:
|
|
|
Post by plonker on Dec 7, 2017 17:54:43 GMT
It sounds like I was mistaken. Having now also read Doncaster’s statement, it seems like clubs also had to apply for the second tier as well, even though it won’t be called WSL 2 going forward. Which is what they’ve done and we have not at this stage. I assume Nick would be correct and we’d drop at least a division. Huge shame. I’m actually pretty gutted, the team deserves better.
It will be a real kick in the nuts if we see a mass import of foreign players into our full-time league because they can make a decent living. Not judging the players at all, but it certainly won’t help the England teams development, like the FA is surely hoping.
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Dec 7, 2017 18:44:59 GMT
Is Shaun Harvey involved in any way with WSL?
|
|