Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 9:23:18 GMT
So AMPG, now that I've taken the time to find out why that case was lost and have looked again at the Guardian piece, I'm amazed to find out that it looks as if they just wrote some old Woke nonsense and didn't do any research whatsoever. The guardian, who would have thought it. I presume you are happy to accept that this wasn't a case brought in an attempt to be awarded 'equal' pay at all? It was an attempt to benefit from the best elements of the existing Lady's contract whilst at the same time retrospectively applying elements of the Men's contract, which it turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, would have been beneficial for the girls to have accepted up front. There's no suggestion that they return or repay any money for the additional benefits they received under their own contract and just swap over to the deal that the Men had and calculate a financial adjustment either way, no, they want the most beneficial elements of the Men's contracts and the most beneficial elements of their own contracts. They want everything. So what, in your opinion should happen next. Should the girls accept the ruling or should they appeal, if they appeal then do you think that the Men are entitled to be compensated because they didn't negotiate to have the same paternity, medical, dental etc benefits as the Ladies?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 9:47:40 GMT
^^^
Yeah this is it basically. What is being under reported about this situation is that the women were given the chance to sign the same deal as the men (*there* is your equality!) which places more emphasis on bonuses but the women chose to sign a deal which gave them a guaranteed salary and maybe some injury cover and other bits and bobs.
But now, they are looking over at what the men *would* earn if they were any good, at a men’s World Cup which generates sums vastly more infinite than the women’s for obvious reasons and they have forgotten about the contract they chose to sign and want a slice of the big pie.
It’s really really ugly on many levels, not least because it’s all about greed seeping into the women’s game, but also because it’s not being reported properly because of the media’s desperate attempt to remain PC and pro women’s football and “equality”. They are also looking for men’s football to effectively subsidise women’s football. Given how outspoken she is I would love to see the look on Rapinoe’s face if women’s football generated big numbers and was asked to subsidise the useless men’s team just because “equality”.
Basically those money grubbing women want it all like Bamber said and no-one in a high profile position in the media dares to risk calling them out on why they signed a contract which they gave them one of two benefits on offer and why they now feel entitled to both benefits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 13:14:07 GMT
^^^ Yeah this is it basically. What is being under reported about this situation is that the women were given the chance to sign the same deal as the men (*there* is your equality!) which places more emphasis on bonuses but the women chose to sign a deal which gave them a guaranteed salary and maybe some injury cover and other bits and bobs. But now, they are looking over at what the men *would* earn if they were any good, at a men’s World Cup which generates sums vastly more infinite than the women’s for obvious reasons and they have forgotten about the contract they chose to sign and want a slice of the big pie. It’s really really ugly on many levels, not least because it’s all about greed seeping into the women’s game, but also because it’s not being reported properly because of the media’s desperate attempt to remain PC and pro women’s football and “equality”. They are also looking for men’s football to effectively subsidise women’s football. Given how outspoken she is I would love to see the look on Rapinoe’s face if women’s football generated big numbers and was asked to subsidise the useless men’s team just because “equality”. Basically those money grubbing women want it all like Bamber said and no-one in a high profile position in the media dares to risk calling them out on why they signed a contract which they gave them one of two benefits on offer and why they now feel entitled to both benefits. As you say, ugly. I hope our FA see this for what it is and they aren't invited here any time soon. Our media are just cowards, I didn't hear anything about the real reasons for the judgement on radio or TV.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
^^^ Yeah this is it basically. What is being under reported about this situation is that the women were given the chance to sign the same deal as the men (*there* is your equality!) which places more emphasis on bonuses but the women chose to sign a deal which gave them a guaranteed salary and maybe some injury cover and other bits and bobs. But now, they are looking over at what the men *would* earn if they were any good, at a men’s World Cup which generates sums vastly more infinite than the women’s for obvious reasons and they have forgotten about the contract they chose to sign and want a slice of the big pie. It’s really really ugly on many levels, not least because it’s all about greed seeping into the women’s game, but also because it’s not being reported properly because of the media’s desperate attempt to remain PC and pro women’s football and “equality”. They are also looking for men’s football to effectively subsidise women’s football. Given how outspoken she is I would love to see the look on Rapinoe’s face if women’s football generated big numbers and was asked to subsidise the useless men’s team just because “equality”. Basically those money grubbing women want it all like Bamber said and no-one in a high profile position in the media dares to risk calling them out on why they signed a contract which they gave them one of two benefits on offer and why they now feel entitled to both benefits. As you say, ugly. I hope our FA see this for what it is and they aren't invited here any time soon. Our media are just cowards, I didn't hear anything about the real reasons for the judgement on radio or TV. I wouldn’t go as far as to ostracise them- if anything they need to be given a platform to play so that their views can be rigorously challenged by the media in pre and post match press conferences. The gloves need to come off and they need to be asked to explain why they feel they should have it all. It’s not equality that they want, it’s supremacy. But the media are too scared because it would go against the PC agenda and no-one wants to be seen challenging women playing the “equality” card, no matter how wrongly, because it loses people their jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 14:23:47 GMT
As you say, ugly. I hope our FA see this for what it is and they aren't invited here any time soon. Our media are just cowards, I didn't hear anything about the real reasons for the judgement on radio or TV. I wouldn’t go as far as to ostracise them- if anything they need to be given a platform to play so that their views can be rigorously challenged by the media in pre and post match press conferences. The gloves need to come off and they need to be asked to explain why they feel they should have it all. It’s not equality that they want, it’s supremacy. But the media are too scared because it would go against the PC agenda and no-one wants to be seen challenging women playing the “equality” card, no matter how wrongly, because it loses people their jobs. Don't agree. There are still some, not many, but some areas where gender is an issue in the workplace. As an example, Google have just been taken to task for underpaying males. What these girls have done is hijack gender inequality and discredit it. They should have what they've tried to do exposed, then they should be ignored and not a single one of them should be welcomed to play anywhere or ever given air time again. What's actually going to happen though is that they'll appeal, someone will be appointed to hear the appeal, if they don't think they can bully that person into finding in their favour they'll complain that the person isn't objective, and they'll keep doing that until they think they have their patsy in place. Reading around the subject, it seems that the thing that really triggered them was when they found out what the German girls earned at the last World Cup. At that point they realised that their reps hadn't done a good job negotiating on their behalf, so rather than go back to the US Federation and say that the pie is now much bigger than anybody had anticipated, so could we discuss how we can divide it fairly please, they've waded in with both feet playing the discrimination card. Disgusting. Ref people losing their jobs, if anybody can explain to me why Victoria Derbyshire wasn't dismissed, twice, once for the original comment about Jeremy Hunt, then again for saying that 'Only Men use that word', I would be delighted to hear the rationalisation. There's BBC equality for you.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on May 18, 2020 8:52:41 GMT
So AMPG, now that I've taken the time to find out why that case was lost and have looked again at the Guardian piece, I'm amazed to find out that it looks as if they just wrote some old Woke nonsense and didn't do any research whatsoever. The guardian, who would have thought it. I presume you are happy to accept that this wasn't a case brought in an attempt to be awarded 'equal' pay at all? It was an attempt to benefit from the best elements of the existing Lady's contract whilst at the same time retrospectively applying elements of the Men's contract, which it turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, would have been beneficial for the girls to have accepted up front. There's no suggestion that they return or repay any money for the additional benefits they received under their own contract and just swap over to the deal that the Men had and calculate a financial adjustment either way, no, they want the most beneficial elements of the Men's contracts and the most beneficial elements of their own contracts. They want everything. So what, in your opinion should happen next. Should the girls accept the ruling or should they appeal, if they appeal then do you think that the Men are entitled to be compensated because they didn't negotiate to have the same paternity, medical, dental etc benefits as the Ladies? a more piratey game (AKA AMPG). Would you care to respond to this allegation that the Guardian prints nonsense (in this particular case)?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 18, 2020 8:57:36 GMT
So AMPG, now that I've taken the time to find out why that case was lost and have looked again at the Guardian piece, I'm amazed to find out that it looks as if they just wrote some old Woke nonsense and didn't do any research whatsoever. The guardian, who would have thought it. I presume you are happy to accept that this wasn't a case brought in an attempt to be awarded 'equal' pay at all? It was an attempt to benefit from the best elements of the existing Lady's contract whilst at the same time retrospectively applying elements of the Men's contract, which it turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, would have been beneficial for the girls to have accepted up front. There's no suggestion that they return or repay any money for the additional benefits they received under their own contract and just swap over to the deal that the Men had and calculate a financial adjustment either way, no, they want the most beneficial elements of the Men's contracts and the most beneficial elements of their own contracts. They want everything. So what, in your opinion should happen next. Should the girls accept the ruling or should they appeal, if they appeal then do you think that the Men are entitled to be compensated because they didn't negotiate to have the same paternity, medical, dental etc benefits as the Ladies? a more piratey game (AKA AMPG). Would you care to respond to this allegation that the Guardian prints nonsense (in this particular case)? I've no inclination to whatsoever! but I've learned that you/we can 'tag' someone in a post - didn't know that before
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 9:38:45 GMT
a more piratey game (AKA AMPG). Would you care to respond to this allegation that the Guardian prints nonsense (in this particular case)? I've no inclination to whatsoever! but I've learned that you/we can 'tag' someone in a post - didn't know that before I mentioned your name in relation to it as you thought it worthy of linking the article. In fairness, you did say that it was just opinion. Yes, the right wing media are every bit as bad as The Guardian. What's the point when you know before you start reading that it's not going to be an accurate reflection of the facts? I'm not aware of any of our UK media covering this honestly. To find out what had actually happened I had to find the judgement itself and read it. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on May 18, 2020 10:44:37 GMT
a more piratey game (AKA AMPG). Would you care to respond to this allegation that the Guardian prints nonsense (in this particular case)? I've no inclination to whatsoever! but I've learned that you/we can 'tag' someone in a post - didn't know that before Fair enough Sir! And yes @ +username to tag another user...
|
|
|
Post by toteend3 on May 18, 2020 11:38:15 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. Ladies competing in Sports such as High and Long Jump, Hockey, Pole Vault, Softball, Netball, Running, Diving, Swimming, Beach Volleyball, Gymnastics................The list is endless. All would be watched by both men and women Why should this be the case, but for completely different reasons?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 11:48:46 GMT
Just give Rapinoe 20 mins during a competitive PL fixture, we'll soon see how equality of opportunity plays out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 12:34:58 GMT
Bamber said
"What's the point when you know before you start reading that it's not going to be an accurate reflection of the facts?"
Book and cover? Judgement?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 12:49:34 GMT
Bamber said "What's the point when you know before you start reading that it's not going to be an accurate reflection of the facts?" Book and cover? Judgement? If you are going to join the debate why not let us know what you think about what these Women tried to do, or whether you think the judgement was fair? Do you think the men should ask for benefits that were not included in their own contract but that the female contract contained and to be compensated because those benefits were not included originally?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on May 18, 2020 18:00:08 GMT
Bamber said "What's the point when you know before you start reading that it's not going to be an accurate reflection of the facts?" Book and cover? Judgement? If you are going to join the debate why not let us know what you think about what these Women tried to do, or whether you think the judgement was fair? Do you think the men should ask for benefits that were not included in their own contract but that the female contract contained and to be compensated because those benefits were not included originally? Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 18, 2020 18:36:15 GMT
If you are going to join the debate why not let us know what you think about what these Women tried to do, or whether you think the judgement was fair? Do you think the men should ask for benefits that were not included in their own contract but that the female contract contained and to be compensated because those benefits were not included originally? Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie . am I alone in thinking that participation on here is not with a view to 'winning' (Donald)?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 18:45:57 GMT
Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie . am I alone in thinking that participation on here is not with a view to 'winning' (Donald)? I agree, it's not about winning. I expect that you are like me AMPG, you like to find out and believe as many true things as possible and dismiss as many false things as you can. To that end, the piece from The Guardian was worse than useless as it appeared to misrepresent through omission what the case was about and why the main element of it was thrown out. I hope that we can agree on that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 18:54:09 GMT
If you are going to join the debate why not let us know what you think about what these Women tried to do, or whether you think the judgement was fair? Do you think the men should ask for benefits that were not included in their own contract but that the female contract contained and to be compensated because those benefits were not included originally? Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie. I think, contrary to our friend on the rather rabid right, I would not choose to not read both sides of an argument. But hey, it's an underlying characteristic. In this particular topic, I have to be honest I have not let it concern me too much. There is so much to contend with in this world that a little covered pay dispute over sport in America hardly causes my attention to rise above 0.1. In the greater scheme of things though those who would deny misogyny as being rampant, although arguably less so in the last 20 years, must be just a tad blind. Now that has applied to remuneration in whatever field the female chooses to work in. In this particular case my overall feeling is that the women involved have demeaned themselves by demanding to be part of pretty nauseating effort and reward system that is American Sports. There is never much talk of the way Universities and Colleges over there use young, mainly black, males to boost their commercial incomes by recruiting them to play a sport that puts their bodies on the line for the false hope (in the vast majority) of the riches of the pro league, all the while pretending to offer a graduate level education. So does this sordid little affair excite me? No. I can't say I particularly blame the women, their pursuit of maximum is not a gender specific pursuit, and who wouldn't. It's just a tad repulsive. But (finally) none of that excuses some of the inane anti female sports rants on this thread, most of which appear, to this member, rooted in misogyny. As for refusing to read a newspaper or any form of writing because of some predetermined perception of what it contains... words fail me. Seems to me that's reading to affirm rather than reading to inform.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 19:29:08 GMT
Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie . I think, contrary to our friend on the rather rabid right, I would not choose to not read both sides of an argument.But hey, it's an underlying characteristic. In this particular topic, I have to be honest I have not let it concern me too much. There is so much to contend with in this world that a little covered pay dispute over sport in America hardly causes my attention to rise above 0.1. In the greater scheme of things though those who would deny misogyny as being rampant, although arguably less so in the last 20 years, must be just a tad blind. Now that has applied to remuneration in whatever field the female chooses to work in. In this particular case my overall feeling is that the women involved have demeaned themselves by demanding to be part of pretty nauseating effort and reward system that is American Sports. There is never much talk of the way Universities and Colleges over there use young, mainly black, males to boost their commercial incomes by recruiting them to play a sport that puts their bodies on the line for the false hope (in the vast majority) of the riches of the pro league, all the while pretending to offer a graduate level education. So does this sordid little affair excite me? No. I can't say I particularly blame the women, their pursuit of maximum is not a gender specific pursuit, and who wouldn't. It's just a tad repulsive. But (finally) none of that excuses some of the inane anti female sports rants on this thread, most of which appear, to this member, rooted in misogyny. As for refusing to read a newspaper or any form of writing because of some predetermined perception of what it contains... words fail me. Seems to me that's reading to affirm rather than reading to inform. Well, at least I read the judgement, you haven't, so one of us is, as usual, informed, the other, as usual... Point me towards this misogyny, not anecdotal or from the 1960s or early 1970s, show me where it exists today. I'm intrigued. I've spent a considerable amount of time looking in to this both here in the UK and the social experiments run in Scandinavia, which I doubt very much you are even aware of, or you wouldn't be saying this stuff, but I'm delighted to have helped point you towards them, nobody expected them to produce the results that they did, go investigate, then we can have a proper discussion. Do you find value in anything written by twerps like Owen Jones, or incomprehensible twaddle penned by children such as Ash (I am literally a Communist) Sarkar? That's the tone of The Guardian, there are similar right wing rags, do you religiously read every one of those, or once you've assessed that there's nothing of value in them do you just give them a wide berth? BTW, yes those Women did frame the claim in gender terms, they did that to gain public support and media traction, the slogan was 'Equal pay', equal to what? I'll help you out, it was something to do with Men...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 21:18:31 GMT
Are we not reading, comparing, and contrasting all of the national print newspapers any more? It's worth the effort to try. Funnily enough, in the vain hope of common ground, I read nothing Corbyn activist in journalist's clothing Owen Jones writes because of his misogyny. He's a nasty little toad, and no mistake.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on May 19, 2020 8:10:14 GMT
Star witness AMPG has seemingly admitted defeat and dropped out the debate - over to you oldie . am I alone in thinking that participation on here is not with a view to 'winning' (Donald)? Well - it's not about 'winning' in every debate... But this one seems to have resulted in "Do you agree with the Guardian and their representation of the US Women's Football claim for "equal pay"? From what I have read, the answer is fairly conclusively "no". The case has been rather well put by my learned friend Mr Gasgroin. So yes, it's about winning. And Bamber won. Though he has rather magnanimously claimed it's not about winning... mmm... Anyway - anything to discredit the Guardian when they have printed fake news is to be applauded. And likewise for the right wing media when they do the same.
|
|