Premier League To play matches outside of England - Page 5

Mike7077 · 02-07-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by x42bn6:
I think the top sides would be exempt from it via a seeding method.

Nope. Seeding would simply prevent them from playing each other.

Mike7077 · 02-07-2008, 11:52 PM

I hope this idea dies a death. And soon. It's just appalling.

Bongo-Bongo · 02-07-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike7077:
I hope this idea dies a death. And soon. It's just appalling.

Sadly, I don't think it will. With the levels of greed in the game right now, I can only see this gaining momentum, at least in the near future. And it's not being helped by brain dead, greedy prats such as David Gold. These money grabbing bastards don't give a rats arse about the real fans, the ones who make their club what it is, they only care about making themselves that little bit richer.

Like you, I'm hopeful that this does die a death, sadly I'm just not optimistic that it will.

B. Stinson · 02-08-2008, 12:04 AM

This thread really made my day.

...because despite my still very young interest in Football, it turns out that I'm actually a more hardcore fan than most here. :thup:

Ched · 02-08-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaroq:
Wow, there's a lot of ridiculous stuff getting thrown around in this thread.

First, the proposal was to add a 39th game, so its not like it would be "costing" any team a home match.

Likewise, about derbies, the Manchester derby, for example, would still be guaranteed to have one match at each Manchester venue, and you'd still have 19 home ties for each club.

There could be a third installment of it overseas, but that would be the same random lottery as any Cup draw might have thrown up.

As far as boycott threats, why?

The NFL and NHL are both beginning to play some of their league matches outside of the U.S., and that hasn't resulted in a major backlash from American fans - who I'd always thought of as more isolationist than Britons!

In fact, I would suggest that that "encroachment" into football's territory is a big part of what prompted this proposal.

I would love, absolutely love to see football make more inroads here in the U.S., and I think this might just be the ticket - pun intended - to stir up some interest.

Glad to see some are a little more open minded.

I do find the talk of boycott hilarious - i would be willing to bet my house that all these people talking of boycotts would possibly do it for as much as a month, and then realise that nothing has changed that much and start spending again - yet another case of internet bravado.

I would support my team wherever they go (not saying i could afford to go there, but i'd sure as hell watch them on tv), if they want to make money then fair enough, how else are they going to pay the team.

Chas (Psyatika) · 02-08-2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaroq:
I doubt any league would be "in favor" of the EPL scheduling matches within their territorial integrity during their league season.

Do you think a minor federation like, say, South Korea, really wants to let the EPL compete for their fans' dollar? AND, if the local F.A. objects, would FIFA sanction such an event?

Money, of course, makes the world go 'round, so presumably you could buy the cooperation of the local F.A., at least in some countries, but now you're eating into the potential profit margin.

MLS, of course, has a pretty window from November through March in which a club could schedule a tie here without infringing - but the American football season is probably tying up most of the best stadiums from August until mid-January, and competing with the NFL playoffs in late January, or with March Madness (NCAA basketball tournament) in March is probably also unlikely - which puts your only "realistic" date in February.

Are the big EPL teams going to be so keen on playing an overseas match just as the UEFA Cup / Champions League knockout stages begin?

1. Leagues like the MLS have no integrity, so don't worry about that.

2. Korea's leagues runs on the same schedule as the MLS, so the scheduling there is easy as well.

3. 9 MLS clubs play in stadia that are specifically for football (soccer). They are not very big, but they are there. At any rate, NFL teams only use their stadia 10-12 times per year (including preseason and playoffs).

4. And as you said, the NFL ran a regular season game in London this season, DURING the EPL season. It didn't hurt the NFL or the EPL, so i find it hard to believe that going the other way would have any dire effect on either league. They are different sports after all. Why not sent a London club to play an "away" fixture in San Diego, whilst the same weekend San Diego travel to Wembley to play an out of conference match?

And about the separation of away fans...the exception does not prove the rule...USA v. Mexico is the only major football match this country gets, and with national pride at stake it's always going to be a heated contest.
You can't honestly believe that Wigan v. West Ham would need fans separated in the USA!

Chas (Psyatika) · 02-08-2008, 02:11 AM

I don't think the plan is as detrimental to the league as some of you moaners make it sound. Then again, leave it to the English to find fault in anything progressive :p (joking!)

Quote:

Originally posted by x42bn6:
It's still a ridiculously stupid idea, of course, because Wigan vs. Birmingham is really going to bring in the crowds. :-/

Is that why the Miami Dolphins (who had yet to win a single match at that point) vs. New York Giants (whom no one was expecting to even make the playoffs at the time, let alone reach the Super Bowl) sold out Wembley in 90 minutes, with ticket prices between £45 and £65?

The whole point is to bring extra revenue in for games that might not otherwise do so, and ANY EPL fixture would accomplish that in the USA.

Chas (Psyatika) · 02-08-2008, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chas (Psyatika):
I don't think the plan is as detrimental to the league as some of you moaners make it sound.

With the exception of the 39th fixture. That's just silly! Leave it at 38 and give us a useless match. The clubs will earn so much money anyway, that it won't matter if the overseas match caused them to finish 14th instead of 13th.

TheFuzzyOne · 02-08-2008, 02:29 AM

It would be funny however if the title was decided by that match...
but i believe that this is cheap advertising, english clubs whoring themselves out.

That said, i won't mind if they come to Singapore!

qrj · 02-08-2008, 02:51 AM

It's the "39th" game with the "top five teams" seeded I have a problem with.

Not to mention everyone from managers to players whinging about players burning out and fixture congestion, already, if a player struggles to cope with international friendlies a mid season trip to Sydney, New York or Tokyo will probably destroy him.

I can see Sir Al, Wenger, Benitez and Grant bickering about locations, opponents, pitches and culture already.

No thanks.