Women's football is bracing itself for the almost certain withdrawal of Birmingham City Ladies from the FA Nationwide Premier League.

Birmingham, who provided a quarter of England's Euro 2005 squad, had been due to be taken under the financial wing of the city's Premiership club.

But a month after receiving a letter of intent, the deal looks to be off.

Despite the involvement of Trevor Brooking they could be forced to pull out of the league on Friday.

FA Director of Football Development Brooking got in touch with Birmingham in an attempt to try to save the women's club.

Birmingham Ladies club chairman Steve Shipway said: "Trevor rang Karren Brady (Birmingham's managing director) and asked if the club would have a change of heart.

"Karren told him they had already looked into every avenue they felt they could do and that they didn't feel investing in women's football was commercially viable.

"She told him she would speak to David Gold (Birmingham chairman) about the situation, but I don't think there's any chance whatsoever they'll change their mind.

"So we've got to hope that someone in the commercial world will see our plight and come in to help us.

"But it's a slender hope - and if it doesn't come off then it looks like we'll have to withdraw from the league on Friday."

Birmingham Ladies need to find a sponsor with a £75,000-per-year package within 72 hours if the club is to survive.

If the club goes under, the top flight would have only nine teams for the 2005-06 season.

And with clubs such as Manchester United, Sunderland and Cardiff City having turned their back on women's football in the last few months, the club scene could be thrown into a state of disarray.

"It's a dangerous situation," said Shipway.

"But although clubs like Manchester United and Birmingham aren't interested in the women's game because they feel they can't make money out of it, others are.

"Clubs like Arsenal, Charlton and Everton are putting money in for the good of the women's game - and it needs that assistance to help it become self-financing."
--------

Shame on Birmingham, and shame on Karren Brady. There is more to football than commercial success, although Brady has never seemed to have grasped this. Birmingham have been involved in the women's game for as long as I can remember, and for them to withdraw now, especially considering their input into the England team, will be a terrible shame and a massive blow.


Vicky

"There's more to football than commercial success" -- it would be better if commercial success was no part of it if you ask me.

It's just disgusting the whole way that football is going down the money avenue.

When you take your kids to training, go to play a match, or even watch one, are you even thinking in the back of your minds about your contribution to commercial success? Of course not. You're in it for the enjoyment of football.

That people can't see it as this is just sad.

Of course teams need to be self-sufficient, but beyond that, there's no reason why a game should rely on making vast sums of money. It should be entirely about the game being played, not anything to do with the stock market.

Trying to look on some kind of bright side, it may in a way be good for international English women's football. These players will find new clubs, no doubt about it, and if they can get themselves into better set ups than Birmingham's, the quality will improve of the international side. Birmingham seem to have one of the least impressive set ups as regards womens football and aren't as interested in developing women's football as some other teams appear to be -- it's not healthy for a majority of the international side to be based in a team like that.

It can't be good for the game.....take a look at this...

-------
The Nationwide Women's Premier League season will kick off in a state of unease after Birmingham City's dice with disaster.

The Premiership men's club had followed Manchester United, Sunderland, Leeds United and Cardiff City in refusing their women's team financial backing.

Birmingham survived closure through a donation from the parent of one of their players.

But they will no longer be able to pay players, many of whom have left anyway.

When, four days before the season's start, they confirmed that they would be continuing in the League, they had assurances from only four players that they would be re-signing.

The Football Association has given the club special dispensation to start the season three weeks late.

Their opening match against last season's runners-up Charlton on Sunday has therefore been postponed.

That means the Addicks are likely to be playing catch-up on champions Arsenal right from the start of the season.

The Gunners kick off the campaign with a visit to newly-promoted Chelsea, who are enjoying some financial help from their parent club.

It may be loose change to billionaire Roman Abramovich, chairman of the women's club as well as the Premiership champions, but the cash injected will help the Blues women play as semi-professionals for the first time.

Sunderland, also promoted, have lost the financial backing of their men's club.

Bristol Rovers have changed their name to Bristol Academy after the educational establishment replaced the Coca-Cola League Two outfit as parent body.

The changes in club structures have sparked a big turnaround of players in the transfer market.

Birmingham are the major losers while Bristol Academy have been the main recruiting club with 11 new players.

After supplying five of England's 20-player squad for the 2005 European Women's Championship finals, decimated Birmingham are unlikely to figure in national coach Hope Powell's thoughts for an important season ahead.

England failed to progress beyond the group stage of Euro 2005 but must now aim to reach the 2007 World Cup finals.

They start their qualifying campaign on 1 September, when they visit Austria.

They then take on Hungary and Holland before completing their first round of group fixtures with a clash against favourites France.

-------------------
Well, it's good for Arsenal I suppose!



Vicky

Yeap, read it on the BBC site earlier.

Well, it's good that they survived, but through the funding of one ofthe parents of players? That the FA have let it come to that is absolutely disgraceful. After all their talking up of the England team's performences at Euro 2005, they let this happen to their league?! It's disgraceful.

It's no good for any team, rival or not... for a team to improve the leagues need to improve around you, to give reason for that improvement...

The FA need to take a serious look at thier league. All that talking of thier women's team's successes in Euro 2005 is useless if they prove this way that they don't actually give a ....

What can the FA do? They don't have the money to prop up women's football, and even if they did, why should they give priority to women's football over schools football, or visually impared leagues, or amateur men's football? They also can't force clubs to support their women's teams. They can encourage, and I think that if there was more encouragement in schools more women would participate, and it might even turn into a money spinner.

I think that the fault lies squarely with the clubs. Arsenal have always supported their ladies, to very little expense, and I fair to see why other Premiership clubs can't do the same. It's only a question of getting them some kits and paying for a training ground a few times a week and a coach!


Vicky

There were two games in the FA cup cancelled last year -- because the teams couldn't afford the transport to the opposition games. I believe one was Sunderland vs Arsenal?

The FA set those fixtures, before enforcing these fixtures on the teams. It's their structure that was partly at fault there.

The men's teams of both those are big name and should have helped, yes, but it's the FA's competition also... if the teams can't make fixtures, the FA should do a bit of restructuring to their fixtures.

Just an example of how the FA could have improved situations.

There also seems to be a big lack of communication between clubs and the FA. Surely the FA, if they have the power that as an authoritive body they should have, can enforce these ridiculously big clubs to at least make sure all parts of their club set ups have the funding to reach their games, provide for their players and just generally play the decen-*test*-('") standard football within realistic scope?

After Euro 2005 many members of the FA appeared very upbeat about their improvements in women's football. If they can't publicise, enourage, and sort their league structures out (what a mess it was last season), then that enthusiasm is sadly pointless.

If Sunderland v Arsenal has to be played, it has to be played - I don't see how altering the fixure would make a difference. The game is not big enough to have regional divisions at lower stages in the 'Pyramid' as the men's game does.

And I think that it would be wrong for the FA to force clubs to support women's teams. That is NOT the role of the FA, and I would say that this would be giving them extra powers which it could be dangerous for them to have.


Vicky

It doesn't have to be played in an early a round as it was, and certainly the venue could have been changed. The clubs should have sorted that out themselves, in fact I don't know why they failed to do so, especially as Arsenal surely knew they were almost guarenteed a win at any rate.

However, the FA could favour the smaller, less rich clubs on the basis of awarding them home ties in the early rounds. That wouldn't seem unfair to me -- in fact, it might even make for closer games.

Personally I think the pyramid could work. It does in Ireland, in the first stages of one cup there is groups of as many teams are in the area. There were only four teams in Waterford Utd's group one year. It's not ideal, it does mean for annoying local games and playing bleedin' Cobh Ramblers about twenty-seven times a season, and I don't think the cup is still running, now that there is the + NI cup for clubs to worry about. But it did work, with few teams at lower levels, and ultimately it did mean a lot less travelling for teams and fans, and football was played.

I didn't say that the FA should enforce clubs to support their women's teams -- I said that the FA should enforce teams supporting ALL AREAS of their clubs. Academies through to men's senior should have enough funding. UEFA are already going close to enforcing this on CL clubs by putting quotas on home-grown players. It's cleverly worded, but at the end of the day, that's hopefully just what it's doing -- forcing big teams to support their youth football. If UEFA can do it with all of Europe's big teams, the FA should be able to do that with thier national league.

I don't like some of the FA as much as the next person does...er wait that sounded wrong... I don't like some of the the FA as much as the next person doesn't... um... I dislike parts of the FA as much as the next person (eureka) but I dislike teams even more that think they run the leagues instead of the authourising body. At the moment, the clubs are dangerously close to having those risky "extra powers." I'd much rather the FA had the powers than *some* of the individual clubs.