D
http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/
--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/
Where the Women make their Money
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
Davide Tosi
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
and money endorsement.
While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
field than in the women's one.
The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
and money endorsement.
While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
field than in the women's one.
The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
C
chiefhiawatha
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Davide Tosi) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
>
> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
> and money endorsement.
>
> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
> field than in the women's one.
> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's athletics
is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
good! Women's cycling. Come on.
(Davide Tosi) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
>
> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
> and money endorsement.
>
> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
> field than in the women's one.
> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's athletics
is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
good! Women's cycling. Come on.
D
Davide Tosi
Guest
[email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Davide Tosi) wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
>>
>> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
>> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
>> and money endorsement.
>>
>> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
>> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
>> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
>> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
>> field than in the women's one.
>> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
>> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
>> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
>
>It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's athletics
>is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
>pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
>
>Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
>Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
>soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
>good! Women's cycling. Come on.
That's your opinion.
I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid sort
of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena williams".
Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally senseless.
Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the technical
aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players like Henin,
Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to watch and worth
the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced power-hitting superwomen like
Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring and ridicolous.
Female cyclists like Van Moorseel, Slioussareva, Melchers, Ljungskog, Longo
have great technical skills and have something to teach to most male
amateur riders.
BTW, I was not talking about promoting women's sport in the USA - a country
that has its own unique scale in terms of sports' audiences and preferences
- I was talking about promoting women's cycling at worldwide level and
obviously first in Europe, where the 95% of the cycling public is located.
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Davide Tosi) wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141
>>
>> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
>> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media attention
>> and money endorsement.
>>
>> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
>> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and female
>> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist, in
>> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the men's
>> field than in the women's one.
>> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first priority,
>> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
>> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
>
>It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's athletics
>is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
>pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
>
>Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
>Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
>soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
>good! Women's cycling. Come on.
That's your opinion.
I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid sort
of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena williams".
Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally senseless.
Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the technical
aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players like Henin,
Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to watch and worth
the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced power-hitting superwomen like
Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring and ridicolous.
Female cyclists like Van Moorseel, Slioussareva, Melchers, Ljungskog, Longo
have great technical skills and have something to teach to most male
amateur riders.
BTW, I was not talking about promoting women's sport in the USA - a country
that has its own unique scale in terms of sports' audiences and preferences
- I was talking about promoting women's cycling at worldwide level and
obviously first in Europe, where the 95% of the cycling public is located.
S
Sierraman
Guest
"chiefhiawatha" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Davide Tosi) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
>
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&
sid=141
> >
> > One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
> > the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media
attention
> > and money endorsement.
> >
> > While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> > coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and
female
> > athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist,
in
> > cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the
men's
> > field than in the women's one.
This would take a little digging. I know women have had some decent prizes
in the past. Wasn't Nicole Reinhart on her way to winning a quarter million
dollar prize. This does't quite rival Lances million dollar payday when he
won here in the U.S., Thrift Drug Triple Crown. Well, that's 4 to 1, but
that's not a thousand times more. Hewlett Packard Women's Challenge, North
America's toughest cycling event offered $128,000 in prize money to the
women. How much for Toona, Gila, Philly, SFGP? I would have to look that up,
but winners have decent prizes.
> > The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first
priority,
> > instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
> > Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
>
> It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's
athletics
> is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
> pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
In Ice Skating, the women blow the men away. Plenty of men players, but the
girls make the sport with their grace and beauty on the ice. True there are
some great men players over the years but without the women, the sport would
be dead. The pairs are cool, because one of the few sports that combine both
sexes.
>
> Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
no, not at all. It just needs someone with deep pockets to come forward and
take the lead. Once done, it could become a very big deal drawing the best
women in the world. Like any event, it would need a consistent commitment
from sponsers or donors. Bill Gates could do it, Ted Turner could do it.
Just wait for someone with deep pockets who becomes a big fan of womens
cycling. Not absurd, could easily happen. With the right media coverage, it
could do very well. Money talks. Trump did it and bailed, but he is not a
true cycling fan. Womens cycling need a mega donor who could absord some
losses to get it rolling for a few years. A true fan, with deep pockets.
> Even the WNBA in America is dying.
Good.
Great teams like the US women
> soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
> good! Women's cycling. Come on.
Yes! Women's Cycling!!!!!!!!!
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Davide Tosi) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
>
>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&
sid=141
> >
> > One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling is
> > the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media
attention
> > and money endorsement.
> >
> > While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> > coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and
female
> > athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist,
in
> > cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the
men's
> > field than in the women's one.
This would take a little digging. I know women have had some decent prizes
in the past. Wasn't Nicole Reinhart on her way to winning a quarter million
dollar prize. This does't quite rival Lances million dollar payday when he
won here in the U.S., Thrift Drug Triple Crown. Well, that's 4 to 1, but
that's not a thousand times more. Hewlett Packard Women's Challenge, North
America's toughest cycling event offered $128,000 in prize money to the
women. How much for Toona, Gila, Philly, SFGP? I would have to look that up,
but winners have decent prizes.
> > The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first
priority,
> > instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like Het
> > Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
>
> It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's
athletics
> is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
> pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
In Ice Skating, the women blow the men away. Plenty of men players, but the
girls make the sport with their grace and beauty on the ice. True there are
some great men players over the years but without the women, the sport would
be dead. The pairs are cool, because one of the few sports that combine both
sexes.
>
> Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
no, not at all. It just needs someone with deep pockets to come forward and
take the lead. Once done, it could become a very big deal drawing the best
women in the world. Like any event, it would need a consistent commitment
from sponsers or donors. Bill Gates could do it, Ted Turner could do it.
Just wait for someone with deep pockets who becomes a big fan of womens
cycling. Not absurd, could easily happen. With the right media coverage, it
could do very well. Money talks. Trump did it and bailed, but he is not a
true cycling fan. Womens cycling need a mega donor who could absord some
losses to get it rolling for a few years. A true fan, with deep pockets.
> Even the WNBA in America is dying.
Good.
Great teams like the US women
> soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
> good! Women's cycling. Come on.
Yes! Women's Cycling!!!!!!!!!
S
Sierraman
Guest
"Davide Tosi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
> >(Davide Tosi) wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
>>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article
&sid=141
> >>
> >> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling
is
> >> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media
attention
> >> and money endorsement.
> >>
> >> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> >> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and
female
> >> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist,
in
> >> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the
men's
> >> field than in the women's one.
> >> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first
priority,
> >> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like
Het
> >> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
> >
> >It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's
athletics
> >is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
> >pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
> >the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
> >
> >Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
> >Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
> >soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
> >good! Women's cycling. Come on.
>
> That's your opinion.
> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
sort
> of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena williams".
Amen.
> Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally senseless.
> Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the technical
> aspects of it.
Yes, and the great women climbers are cool to watch on the big climbs of the
Grande Boucle. Watching Joane S., Faby and Brandli go head to head on the
big climbs is a treat to watch as they leave the pack far behind. They just
simply ride away like Jeanson does. Also riders like Olga Zabelinskaia,
Zoulfia Zabirova make the races more exciting with their overall skills and
don't forget the sprinters. It's a drag that Rossner and Luperini got axed
from the games this year as this only hurts the sport. Judith's finger did
little to help matters.
That means that in tennis very skilled players like Henin,
> Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to watch and worth
> the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced power-hitting superwomen like
> Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring and ridicolous.
> Female cyclists like Van Moorseel, Slioussareva, Melchers, Ljungskog,
Longo
> have great technical skills and have something to teach to most male
> amateur riders.
Yeah, Van Moorsel has given cycling clinics in the NL where many men have
attended. Longo has helped women in France over the years in clinics.
Melchers is a bit young yet to command the respect of the cycling community
as I would think she is still learning herself. Lung-Skag has been around
quite a while. Luperini would have great experience to share in clinics in
Italy.
> BTW, I was not talking about promoting women's sport in the USA - a
country
> that has its own unique scale in terms of sports' audiences and
preferences
> - I was talking about promoting women's cycling at worldwide level and
> obviously first in Europe, where the 95% of the cycling public is located.
Womens cycling in American is doing better all the time, and a footnote to
the games. I find it interesting that the USA channel gave almost 4 hours to
the womens road race, compared to almost nothing for all the mens events
combined on NBC!!!!!!!! Yes it came on at early morning hours but who cares
in this age where you can easily record the race with the timer functions of
the VCR or DVD. I would rather have 4 hours taped then 5 minutes or nothing
in primetime!
I don't know how that happened or who did that but someone is listening!
Good ole USA channel!
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
> >(Davide Tosi) wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
>>http://www.ladiescycling.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article
&sid=141
> >>
> >> One of the biggest embarassment for the present management of cycling
is
> >> the huge gap that separates men and women in terms of both media
attention
> >> and money endorsement.
> >>
> >> While in other individual sports like tennis, skiing or athletics TV
> >> coverage, prizes and sponsorships are almost the same for male and
female
> >> athletes, with gaps in proportion not bigger than 10% where they exist,
in
> >> cycling TV space and available money are a thousand times more in the
men's
> >> field than in the women's one.
> >> The UCI should have the promotion of its women's circuit as first
priority,
> >> instead of creating that abortion of a "pro tour" without races like
Het
> >> Volk, Harelbeke and Paris-Brussel.
> >
> >It is a bare fact of life that aside from very few sports, women's
athletics
> >is a joke compared to men's athletics. In cycling this is even more
> >pronounced. Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
> >the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
> >
> >Spend a dime to promote women's cycling? Seriously, that's absurd.
> >Even the WNBA in America is dying. Great teams like the US women
> >soccer squad register just a blip on the landscape, and they're actually
> >good! Women's cycling. Come on.
>
> That's your opinion.
> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
sort
> of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena williams".
Amen.
> Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally senseless.
> Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the technical
> aspects of it.
Yes, and the great women climbers are cool to watch on the big climbs of the
Grande Boucle. Watching Joane S., Faby and Brandli go head to head on the
big climbs is a treat to watch as they leave the pack far behind. They just
simply ride away like Jeanson does. Also riders like Olga Zabelinskaia,
Zoulfia Zabirova make the races more exciting with their overall skills and
don't forget the sprinters. It's a drag that Rossner and Luperini got axed
from the games this year as this only hurts the sport. Judith's finger did
little to help matters.
That means that in tennis very skilled players like Henin,
> Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to watch and worth
> the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced power-hitting superwomen like
> Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring and ridicolous.
> Female cyclists like Van Moorseel, Slioussareva, Melchers, Ljungskog,
Longo
> have great technical skills and have something to teach to most male
> amateur riders.
Yeah, Van Moorsel has given cycling clinics in the NL where many men have
attended. Longo has helped women in France over the years in clinics.
Melchers is a bit young yet to command the respect of the cycling community
as I would think she is still learning herself. Lung-Skag has been around
quite a while. Luperini would have great experience to share in clinics in
Italy.
> BTW, I was not talking about promoting women's sport in the USA - a
country
> that has its own unique scale in terms of sports' audiences and
preferences
> - I was talking about promoting women's cycling at worldwide level and
> obviously first in Europe, where the 95% of the cycling public is located.
Womens cycling in American is doing better all the time, and a footnote to
the games. I find it interesting that the USA channel gave almost 4 hours to
the womens road race, compared to almost nothing for all the mens events
combined on NBC!!!!!!!! Yes it came on at early morning hours but who cares
in this age where you can easily record the race with the timer functions of
the VCR or DVD. I would rather have 4 hours taped then 5 minutes or nothing
in primetime!
I don't know how that happened or who did that but someone is listening!
Good ole USA channel!
R
Robert Chung
Guest
Davide Tosi wrote:
> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>
>> Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
> sort of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena
> williams". Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally
> senseless. Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the
> technical aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players
> like Henin, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to
> watch and worth the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced
> power-hitting superwomen like Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring
> and ridicolous.
So Petacchi is exciting because of his power but the Williams sisters are
boring because of theirs?
> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>
>> Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
> sort of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena
> williams". Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally
> senseless. Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the
> technical aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players
> like Henin, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to
> watch and worth the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced
> power-hitting superwomen like Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring
> and ridicolous.
So Petacchi is exciting because of his power but the Williams sisters are
boring because of theirs?
J
Jbenkert111
Guest
Why do women not get paid as well as the men? It is not because they are not
as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
money would flow.
Actually, if you look at biking and running events, the women get paid alot
closer to parity with the men then if the events paid out prize money based on
the percent of entries. I don't know what the stats are but I would guess
that women on average get, say 40% of the purse, but only have about 20% of the
entries.
as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
money would flow.
Actually, if you look at biking and running events, the women get paid alot
closer to parity with the men then if the events paid out prize money based on
the percent of entries. I don't know what the stats are but I would guess
that women on average get, say 40% of the purse, but only have about 20% of the
entries.
J
John Forrest Tomlinson
Guest
On 11 Sep 2004 19:22:54 GMT, [email protected] (Jbenkert111) wrote:
>Why do women not get paid as well as the men? It is not because they are not
>as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
>the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
>participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
>less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
>retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
>money would flow.
The general thrust of your remarks are right, but the details may not
be. At least where I live I think there is roughly comparable
participation of men and women in sport, at least of people my age and
younger. But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
>Why do women not get paid as well as the men? It is not because they are not
>as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
>the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
>participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
>less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
>retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
>money would flow.
The general thrust of your remarks are right, but the details may not
be. At least where I live I think there is roughly comparable
participation of men and women in sport, at least of people my age and
younger. But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
C
Carl Sundquist
Guest
"Sierraman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> no, not at all. It just needs someone with deep pockets to come forward
and
> take the lead. Once done, it could become a very big deal drawing the best
> women in the world. Like any event, it would need a consistent commitment
> from sponsers or donors. Bill Gates could do it, Ted Turner could do it.
> Just wait for someone with deep pockets who becomes a big fan of womens
> cycling. Not absurd, could easily happen. With the right media coverage,
it
> could do very well. Money talks. Trump did it and bailed, but he is not a
> true cycling fan.
IIRC, Trump essentially sold his name to the race, not personally
bankrolling it, in order to 'legitimatize' it as a Big Time Race, thus
giving the actual race organizers credibility to secure other sponsors who
actually paid the bills.
> no, not at all. It just needs someone with deep pockets to come forward
and
> take the lead. Once done, it could become a very big deal drawing the best
> women in the world. Like any event, it would need a consistent commitment
> from sponsers or donors. Bill Gates could do it, Ted Turner could do it.
> Just wait for someone with deep pockets who becomes a big fan of womens
> cycling. Not absurd, could easily happen. With the right media coverage,
it
> could do very well. Money talks. Trump did it and bailed, but he is not a
> true cycling fan.
IIRC, Trump essentially sold his name to the race, not personally
bankrolling it, in order to 'legitimatize' it as a Big Time Race, thus
giving the actual race organizers credibility to secure other sponsors who
actually paid the bills.
D
Davide Tosi
Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Davide Tosi wrote:
>> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>>
>>> Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>>> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
>
>> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
>> sort of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena
>> williams". Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally
>> senseless. Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the
>> technical aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players
>> like Henin, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to
>> watch and worth the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced
>> power-hitting superwomen like Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring
>> and ridicolous.
>
>So Petacchi is exciting because of his power but the Williams sisters are
>boring because of theirs?
Petacchi does not win because of his power. Many other sprinters - the ones
that are also trackies, like O'Grady - are much powerful than he is.
What makes a focused Petacchi almost unbeatable is his sense of timing.
He's like an atomic clock, he always launches himself at the right moment,
never 1 cm too early, never 1 cm too late.
It's all technique, in the end.
>Davide Tosi wrote:
>> [email protected] (chiefhiawatha) wrote:
>>
>>> Only in tennis is it even close, and that is because of
>>> the current crop of fun players to watch, like Serena Williams.
>
>> I personally enjoy much more watching women's cycling than that stupid
>> sort of s&m dressed body-double of mike tyson that you call "serena
>> williams". Comparing women's performances with men's ones is totally
>> senseless. Women's sports are really enjoyable when they highlight the
>> technical aspects of it. That means that in tennis very skilled players
>> like Henin, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina or Zvonereva are very fun to
>> watch and worth the price one pays, while the HGH-enhanced
>> power-hitting superwomen like Williamsx2 and Capriati are just boring
>> and ridicolous.
>
>So Petacchi is exciting because of his power but the Williams sisters are
>boring because of theirs?
Petacchi does not win because of his power. Many other sprinters - the ones
that are also trackies, like O'Grady - are much powerful than he is.
What makes a focused Petacchi almost unbeatable is his sense of timing.
He's like an atomic clock, he always launches himself at the right moment,
never 1 cm too early, never 1 cm too late.
It's all technique, in the end.
M
MMan37x
Guest
>This would take a little digging. I know women have had some decent prizes
>in the past. Wasn't Nicole Reinhart on her way to winning a quarter million
>dollar prize. This does't quite rival Lances million dollar payday when he
>won here in the U.S., Thrift Drug Triple Crown. Well, that's 4 to 1, but
>that's not a thousand times more. Hewlett Packard Women's Challenge, North
>America's toughest cycling event offered $128,000 in prize money to the
>women. How much for Toona
And, remember, the primary Tour de Tooma promotor is pushing to expand it to a
ten-day race with GT status, possibly as early as next year.
M Man
>in the past. Wasn't Nicole Reinhart on her way to winning a quarter million
>dollar prize. This does't quite rival Lances million dollar payday when he
>won here in the U.S., Thrift Drug Triple Crown. Well, that's 4 to 1, but
>that's not a thousand times more. Hewlett Packard Women's Challenge, North
>America's toughest cycling event offered $128,000 in prize money to the
>women. How much for Toona
And, remember, the primary Tour de Tooma promotor is pushing to expand it to a
ten-day race with GT status, possibly as early as next year.
M Man
P
PedalChick
Guest
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 11 Sep 2004 19:22:54 GMT, [email protected] (Jbenkert111) wrote:
>
> >Why do women not get paid as well as the men? It is not because they are not
> >as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
> >the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
> >participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
> >less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
> >retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
> >money would flow.
> The general thrust of your remarks are right, but the details may not
> be. At least where I live I think there is roughly comparable
> participation of men and women in sport, at least of people my age and
> younger. But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
> And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
>
> JT
>
Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
suppose.
I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
> On 11 Sep 2004 19:22:54 GMT, [email protected] (Jbenkert111) wrote:
>
> >Why do women not get paid as well as the men? It is not because they are not
> >as good or because people watch or don't watch. All you have to do is follow
> >the money trail, that's the only thing that matters. If more women
> >participated in sports and purchased items from retailers (women spend much
> >less then men on average and aerobics at the club does not help) these
> >retailers would be looking for more women's sports to sponsor and THEN the
> >money would flow.
> The general thrust of your remarks are right, but the details may not
> be. At least where I live I think there is roughly comparable
> participation of men and women in sport, at least of people my age and
> younger. But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
> And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
>
> JT
>
Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
suppose.
I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
S
Sierraman
Guest
"PedalChick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 11 Sep 2004 19:22:54 GMT, [email protected] (Jbenkert111) wrote:
This is one reason why I don't watch any
> sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
> there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
> coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Amen to the Womens RR on the USA channel.
I probably have more womens cycling videos then anyone in the country but
that's not many compared to the hundreds that exist for the men thanks to
WCP and others, but WCP doesn't market one single womens cycling video that
I know of. I think Longo, Van Moorsel, Luperini deserve some attention at
least in the form of Documentary. All the ones I have from Europe are in
Pal, no english and that's not a lot considering Europe being the hub. The
sports channels that covered all the womens races in Europe have tons of
footage sitting in the archives but it takes big money to access and produce
something special. Longo-Van Moorsel 92-93 TDF is setting in the vaults, but
it takes some deep pockets to get at it. I think local coverage isn't bad at
times here but there is no system in place that allows us to buy videos of
national races except getting copies from buddies on rbr or forums. Even
Euro DVD has little to offer in the way of womens races. In view of that
excellent coverage of the women RR in the games, channels like OLN and
thanks to local channels, things are getting better all the time. I have
collected some nice stuff from womens races here in the U.S. over the years,
but I was just lucky, hit and miss with airing times. Wait and see how
Lance's retirement from cycling affects all this, which it will. Wait and
see!
news:[email protected]...
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 11 Sep 2004 19:22:54 GMT, [email protected] (Jbenkert111) wrote:
This is one reason why I don't watch any
> sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
> there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
> coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Amen to the Womens RR on the USA channel.
I probably have more womens cycling videos then anyone in the country but
that's not many compared to the hundreds that exist for the men thanks to
WCP and others, but WCP doesn't market one single womens cycling video that
I know of. I think Longo, Van Moorsel, Luperini deserve some attention at
least in the form of Documentary. All the ones I have from Europe are in
Pal, no english and that's not a lot considering Europe being the hub. The
sports channels that covered all the womens races in Europe have tons of
footage sitting in the archives but it takes big money to access and produce
something special. Longo-Van Moorsel 92-93 TDF is setting in the vaults, but
it takes some deep pockets to get at it. I think local coverage isn't bad at
times here but there is no system in place that allows us to buy videos of
national races except getting copies from buddies on rbr or forums. Even
Euro DVD has little to offer in the way of womens races. In view of that
excellent coverage of the women RR in the games, channels like OLN and
thanks to local channels, things are getting better all the time. I have
collected some nice stuff from womens races here in the U.S. over the years,
but I was just lucky, hit and miss with airing times. Wait and see how
Lance's retirement from cycling affects all this, which it will. Wait and
see!
J
John Forrest Tomlinson
Guest
On 13 Sep 2004 11:35:59 -0700, [email protected] (PedalChick)
wrote:
>Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
>research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
>begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
>found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
>sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
>percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
>suppose.
>I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
>or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
>from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
>than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
>on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
>literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
>sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
>there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
>coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Thanks.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
wrote:
>Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
>research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
>begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
>found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
>sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
>percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
>suppose.
>I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
>or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
>from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
>than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
>on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
>literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
>sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
>there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
>coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Thanks.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"PedalChick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
> research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
> begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
> found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
> sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
> percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
> suppose.
I would agree with you on this count. However, on the items that provide
advertising - beer, cars, beer, bowflex, beer, cars and beer, men make the
vast majority of buy decisions. Maybe women spend the most money in the
household but most of it goes to necessities that aren't flexible spending.
> I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
> or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
> from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
> than women's sports.
If you expect to get any money you're going to have to start by getting that
chip off of your shoulder. It doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are that men's
sports get the most money (actually it's tradition but what the hell do you
care about that either?). Whatever the reason you have to overcome it to
make any gains in your presentations.
In order to get advertising money from companies you have to present a
program that makes sense to them. Something that will give them more bang
for their buck than other people who are competing for their money. And that
means that YES, you're going to lose out to men in most cases. But that just
means that you have to be better at marketing than they are and not better
at racing necessarily.
Now, since women spend a great deal more money on clothing, furniture, food
and medium priced and generally terrible wine, you have to target those
sorts of businesses with your marketing.
Companies like Apple and Disney might donate chump change in order to get
you ought of their waiting rooms but it is other businesses that are going
to try to make some sort of impact in their markets with women's racing.
I can see a "modern women" presentation that could be used as a vehicle for
marketing clothing, travel or real estate. Remember that a LOT of people
were both turned on and repulsed by Beach Volleyball. While most women would
like to look like that, most are accutely aware that they do not. And
frankly thank heavens. If I see one more jiggle in the next month I'll throw
up. I must be getting old.
Anyway, if you hope to achieve anything you have to begin with a positive
attitude and not let the failures get you down.
news:[email protected]...
>
> Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
> research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
> begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
> found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
> sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
> percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
> suppose.
I would agree with you on this count. However, on the items that provide
advertising - beer, cars, beer, bowflex, beer, cars and beer, men make the
vast majority of buy decisions. Maybe women spend the most money in the
household but most of it goes to necessities that aren't flexible spending.
> I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
> or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
> from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
> than women's sports.
If you expect to get any money you're going to have to start by getting that
chip off of your shoulder. It doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are that men's
sports get the most money (actually it's tradition but what the hell do you
care about that either?). Whatever the reason you have to overcome it to
make any gains in your presentations.
In order to get advertising money from companies you have to present a
program that makes sense to them. Something that will give them more bang
for their buck than other people who are competing for their money. And that
means that YES, you're going to lose out to men in most cases. But that just
means that you have to be better at marketing than they are and not better
at racing necessarily.
Now, since women spend a great deal more money on clothing, furniture, food
and medium priced and generally terrible wine, you have to target those
sorts of businesses with your marketing.
Companies like Apple and Disney might donate chump change in order to get
you ought of their waiting rooms but it is other businesses that are going
to try to make some sort of impact in their markets with women's racing.
I can see a "modern women" presentation that could be used as a vehicle for
marketing clothing, travel or real estate. Remember that a LOT of people
were both turned on and repulsed by Beach Volleyball. While most women would
like to look like that, most are accutely aware that they do not. And
frankly thank heavens. If I see one more jiggle in the next month I'll throw
up. I must be getting old.
Anyway, if you hope to achieve anything you have to begin with a positive
attitude and not let the failures get you down.
A
Amit
Guest
[email protected] (PedalChick) wrote in message
> Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
> research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
> begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
> found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
> sports viewing audience,
how do you know this ? of course there are women that watch or follow
sport but i've always gotten the impression that it's mainly men that
watch and follow men's and women's sports. if you have evidence to the
contrary it would surprise a lot of people.
> AND they are responsible for some huge
> percentage of household purchases (like 80%?).
i was thinking today that something like the NBA is considered a huge
business, but a big percentage of the population is oblivious to it.
as a business it can only tap a percentage of the population, so it's
growth is limited. but there are also other huge entertainment
enterprises (like say the shopaholic books) people like me are
oblivious to.
> Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
> research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
> begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
> found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
> sports viewing audience,
how do you know this ? of course there are women that watch or follow
sport but i've always gotten the impression that it's mainly men that
watch and follow men's and women's sports. if you have evidence to the
contrary it would surprise a lot of people.
> AND they are responsible for some huge
> percentage of household purchases (like 80%?).
i was thinking today that something like the NBA is considered a huge
business, but a big percentage of the population is oblivious to it.
as a business it can only tap a percentage of the population, so it's
growth is limited. but there are also other huge entertainment
enterprises (like say the shopaholic books) people like me are
oblivious to.
R
RonSonic
Guest
On 13 Sep 2004 11:35:59 -0700, [email protected] (PedalChick) wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
>> And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
>Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
>research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
>begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
>found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
>sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
>percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
>suppose.
Are they as influenced by flashy commercials in a sporting event? A decision on
beer or whether to buy Brand F, C or D trucks can be based on impulse and ego
which can be influenced by an ad.
>I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
>or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
>from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
>than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
>on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
>literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
>sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
>there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
>coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Sorry, but for the most part women's sports are just like the men's except for
being smaller and slower. Not a big sell there. Where they are marketed well are
sports where the skill set is a bit different and clearly displayed, soccer,
skating, tennis, volleyball and gymnastics. Even if you leave out the beach,
beer, bikini angle in volleyball, it's still a great game. Same with the others
- these are great games that have their own style of play and can hold interest.
I think you make a mistake to blame old boy networks and the like, instead you
need to find a reason for someone to have an interest in the first place. Now
maybe talk of chauvinism, etc will play well with some potential sponsors, it'll
be death with others. Find the right sponsors for the market and show them how
to get positive attention for their advertising dollar. Lynn St James showing up
at Indy with a pink and black Lifetime car made an impact that's held up for
many years. Find the angle that has impact and show the sponsor how to use the
team off the course. If you've studied this you know that sponsorship must get
exposure away from the event itself to be worthwhile to a sponsor.
Anyway, a few thoughts. Best of luck with the team and sponsorship effort.
Ron
>John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> But their are way more men who are TV sports spectators.
>> And that's where the money for pro athletes comes from.
>Actually, I don't think this is true at all. I've been doing lots of
>research into sports marketing and demographics in preparation for
>begging everyone in the corporate world for money for my team, and I
>found statistics that show that women are nearly an equal share of the
>sports viewing audience, AND they are responsible for some huge
>percentage of household purchases (like 80%?). Except for beer, I
>suppose.
Are they as influenced by flashy commercials in a sporting event? A decision on
beer or whether to buy Brand F, C or D trucks can be based on impulse and ego
which can be influenced by an ad.
>I think it is just down to the good ol' boy network, male chauvanism,
>or whatever you want to call it that continues to push men's sports
>from high school, through college and on to the pro level far harder
>than women's sports. You see if from the local high school coverage
>on the 11 O'clock news on up to the stuporbowl. And women are quite
>literally buying into it. This is one reason why I don't watch any
>sports other than cycling on TV, and even then I get ****** off that
>there's no coverage of women's cycling (other than the totally awesome
>coverage of the very exciting women's olympic RR).
Sorry, but for the most part women's sports are just like the men's except for
being smaller and slower. Not a big sell there. Where they are marketed well are
sports where the skill set is a bit different and clearly displayed, soccer,
skating, tennis, volleyball and gymnastics. Even if you leave out the beach,
beer, bikini angle in volleyball, it's still a great game. Same with the others
- these are great games that have their own style of play and can hold interest.
I think you make a mistake to blame old boy networks and the like, instead you
need to find a reason for someone to have an interest in the first place. Now
maybe talk of chauvinism, etc will play well with some potential sponsors, it'll
be death with others. Find the right sponsors for the market and show them how
to get positive attention for their advertising dollar. Lynn St James showing up
at Indy with a pink and black Lifetime car made an impact that's held up for
many years. Find the angle that has impact and show the sponsor how to use the
team off the course. If you've studied this you know that sponsorship must get
exposure away from the event itself to be worthwhile to a sponsor.
Anyway, a few thoughts. Best of luck with the team and sponsorship effort.
Ron
A
Amit
Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "PedalChick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...>
> Now, since women spend a great deal more money on clothing, furniture, food
> and medium priced and generally terrible wine, you have to target those
> sorts of businesses with your marketing.
>
dumbass, if rbr is any indication, way more men follow women's racing than women.
> "PedalChick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...>
> Now, since women spend a great deal more money on clothing, furniture, food
> and medium priced and generally terrible wine, you have to target those
> sorts of businesses with your marketing.
>
dumbass, if rbr is any indication, way more men follow women's racing than women.
T
TritonRider
Guest
>From: RonSonic [email protected]
Find the right sponsors for the market and show them how
to get positive attention for their advertising dollar. Lynn St James showing
up
at Indy with a pink and black Lifetime car made an impact that's held up for
many years.
I'm really amazed that Nascar hasn't found a woman who can compete with the
"boys" and gotten her out there. There is no reason that I can think of that a
woman wouldn't be as likely to dominate as a man is Nascar.
Maybe when AJ Foyt gets ****** off at 'em again he'll bring in a woman into
Nascar. He's helped/worked with St. James before and does enjoy pissing people
off.
Bill C
Find the right sponsors for the market and show them how
to get positive attention for their advertising dollar. Lynn St James showing
up
at Indy with a pink and black Lifetime car made an impact that's held up for
many years.
I'm really amazed that Nascar hasn't found a woman who can compete with the
"boys" and gotten her out there. There is no reason that I can think of that a
woman wouldn't be as likely to dominate as a man is Nascar.
Maybe when AJ Foyt gets ****** off at 'em again he'll bring in a woman into
Nascar. He's helped/worked with St. James before and does enjoy pissing people
off.
Bill C
Similar threads
C
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 2K
?
C
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 1K
?
C
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 2K
?
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 2K
?
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 64
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 401
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 572
