Re: The Grumbler's County Cricket Newsletter

by Chinaman Wed Mar 27, 2024 3:45 pm

adelaide wrote:Yes, it is pretty obviously the case that womens' cricket brings in a lot less revenue per player, so it make sense that they are paid less. Nobody is seriously disputing that.

But it is not a choice between retaining the existing differentials for ever and going for equal pay now. The question is whether the relative commercial positions have changed enough to allow a narrowing of the gap. If they have, what's the problem?

I'm not sure quite where you are coming from here. You seem to be saying on one hand that commercial position now says that the women bring in less revenue so should be paid less of which I agree. But you then say have the positions changed enough to allow a narrowing of the gap contradicting your first statement, because they haven't yet by any significant degree. The equal pay argument therefore seems to largely rest on diversity issues rather than economic or ability ones.

by Sir Winston Churchill Wed Mar 27, 2024 3:52 pm

Chinaman, please see my previous post re the staggering sums that the women are getting paid (these are FACTS by the way, Adelaide!).

There is no way on earth that the womens 100 generates the income that covers not only the huge costs of these salaries, but all of the costs pertaining to running the event. The mens game IS funding the shortfall, of which I am certain is to the tune of millions. The women are having a right old laugh at our expense whilst the likes of Grumbler, Nasser Hussain, Rob Key etc fall for the utter nonsense about its "great success" and interest. AND yet the women are still moaning that they deserve more money. What planet are they on? (I know, planet Woke).

by Jackers Wed Mar 27, 2024 5:34 pm

At the risk of veering into "anything but cricket" territory, the entitlement of these "waspie women" is pretty staggering. The anachronism that women got their state pension pension five years before men should have been addressed long before it ever was. The relevant legislation was passed by the Major Government in 1995, and didn't start to take effect until 15 years later. The ombudsmen ruled that DWP's comms wasn't all that it might have been, and so awarded them £3k compensation (even though the vast majority knew about the change through the news and high-profile campaigns against it). They still apparently think they are somehow entitled to get the extra 5 years pension that they would have received under the old system.

Equality works both ways.

by MatthewC Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:16 pm

Jackers wrote:At the risk of veering into "anything but cricket" territory, the entitlement of these "waspie women" is pretty staggering. The anachronism that women got their state pension pension five years before men should have been addressed long before it ever was. The relevant legislation was passed by the Major Government in 1995, and didn't start to take effect until 15 years later. The ombudsmen ruled that DWP's comms wasn't all that it might have been, and so awarded them £3k compensation (even though the vast majority knew about the change through the news and high-profile campaigns against it). They still apparently think they are somehow entitled to get the extra 5 years pension that they would have received under the old system.

Equality works both ways.

I found it equally amusing when car insurers could no longer price their policies according to gender.

"No, we didn't mean that sort of equality!"

by adelaide Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:21 pm

Jackers wrote:At the risk of veering into "anything but cricket" territory, the entitlement of these "waspie women" is pretty staggering. The anachronism that women got their state pension pension five years before men should have been addressed long before it ever was. The relevant legislation was passed by the Major Government in 1995, and didn't start to take effect until 15 years later. The ombudsmen ruled that DWP's comms wasn't all that it might have been, and so awarded them £3k compensation (even though the vast majority knew about the change through the news and high-profile campaigns against it). They still apparently think they are somehow entitled to get the extra 5 years pension that they would have received under the old system.

Equality works both ways.

Jackers - The WASPI group has never said that it is opposed to the pension age being equalised. What it claims is that the DWP did not communicate this well enough and that some women were deprived of the opportunity to plan their finances and retirement on the basis of the higher retirement age. Now I was well aware of it years in advance and so was my wife but I do know women with good jobs for whom this came as a nasty shock as they approached 60. So was that poor communication or putting it out of their minds because it was years away? The ombudsman says the former, at least in part. But whether you agree with the ombudsman or not, this is emphatically not about resisting the equalisation of pension ages.

by Chinaman Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:29 pm

adelaide wrote:
Jackers wrote:At the risk of veering into "anything but cricket" territory, the entitlement of these "waspie women" is pretty staggering. The anachronism that women got their state pension pension five years before men should have been addressed long before it ever was. The relevant legislation was passed by the Major Government in 1995, and didn't start to take effect until 15 years later. The ombudsmen ruled that DWP's comms wasn't all that it might have been, and so awarded them £3k compensation (even though the vast majority knew about the change through the news and high-profile campaigns against it). They still apparently think they are somehow entitled to get the extra 5 years pension that they would have received under the old system.

Equality works both ways.

Jackers - The WASPI group has never said that it is opposed to the pension age being equalised. What it claims is that the DWP did not communicate this well enough and that some women were deprived of the opportunity to plan their finances and retirement on the basis of the higher retirement age. Now I was well aware of it years in advance and so was my wife but I do know women with good jobs for whom this came as a nasty shock as they approached 60. So was that poor communication or putting it out of their minds because it was years away? The ombudsman says the former, at least in part. But whether you agree with the ombudsman or not, this is emphatically not about resisting the equalisation of pension ages.

My sister has the same problem, and she has always put it down to poor communication, and failing to inform people by plenty of notice.

by adelaide Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:05 am

"Above their station", SWC? That says it all, really. It's getting like Harry Enfield's "Women, know your place" send-ups.

by Badges Sat Mar 30, 2024 7:43 pm

Jackers wrote:I broadly agree with SWC's analysis on the equal pay issue.

Sport operates commercially. If women are clearly not (yet) attracting the same amount of money as men, either through ticket sales or TV revenue, there is no commercial case for paying them equal money. By all means promote the women's game, invest in development programmes and encourage girls to learn to love to play as well as watch the game. But until there is evidence it is something that lots of people want to pay to watch, they can't expect to get paid the same.

The issue with tennis is rather different, ie women play fewer sets than men. They should of course receive equal rates of pay (per hour), but the overall prize money should reflect that they are on court for less time.

I must say that this is about the only issue where I would take issue with "Grumbler". [b]He is one of the good guys, and on the side of proper cricket. Let's show him respect.

Well said.Just forget the ladies sections and enjoy the rest.

by Badges Sat Mar 30, 2024 8:16 pm

This morning the 45th edition of THE CRICKETERS' WHO'S WHO arrived.I have them all.The first few years followed the format of one page per County Cricketer until in 1987 when they started including Umpires.

This continued until 2011 when they introduced sections on teams such as Unicorns,Scotland,Netherlands and the International touring teams.

In 2013 The ladies section arrived,entitled ENGLAND WOMEN.This took up 20 pages.This format continued to 2020 though they cut the Umpres to half a page each in 2018.

In 2021 the ladies section,now entitled WOMEN'S PLAYERS took up 60 pages.In 2022 it was 68 and the Umpires were cut out save for a page with just a list of their names and brief details.Last year the ladies section was 95 pages.This year we have a ladies section of 106 pages.

by Badges Mon Apr 01, 2024 12:18 pm

Each year the players are asked a series of questions in these books.I've asked a few of them and the way it works is they can choose those questions they wish to answer.

In answer to the question WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF COUNTY CRICKET? Laurie Evans (who no longer plays County Cricket) has replied "REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GAMES."

by Sponsored content