Premiership games abroad?

[FireDoughnut]

I think I'm a fan of the idea. the more I think about it, the more it works in my head.

Imagine it, Setanta bid for one weekend of games and bring four teams to Dublin rather than the middle-east. Those players would be well annoyed, playng the rain while the rest are off sunning themselves.

[Clawson]

Imagine it, Setanta bid for one weekend of games and bring four teams to Dublin rather than the middle-east. Those players would be well annoyed, playng the rain while the rest are off sunning themselves.

[alldaws1]

Imagine it, Setanta bid for one weekend of games and bring four teams to Dublin rather than the middle-east. Those players would be well annoyed, playng the rain while the rest are off sunning themselves.

The games would be played in January for mid-season right? Bring it to Canada. I'd die laughing at them trying to play in this snow.

Paul Stalteri could handle it >_>

[therockbox]

It was inevitable really.

The Premier League is a global business. More people watch our game from abroad than do in Blighty. Teams are forever going on Asian tours to 'capitalise on the lucrative Oriental market'.

Hell, Manchester United took time out in the middle of the week last month to go play a testimonial for a player with whom they had absolutely no connection, in return for a dirty great bag of cash.

It's been coming for a while. Individual teams have been screwing their base support for years, so surely it was only a matter of time before they clubbed together and decided to do it collectively.

However, while we may have seen it coming, to describe the proposal to play ten Premier League games outside of these shores as 'logical' (as BBC sports editor Mihir Bose did) is ludicrous.

Apparently all 20 Premier League club chairman have agreed 'to explore the proposal' to add a 39th game to each side's schedule, which will entail a seeded draw to determine who plays who and where.

It's safe to assume that most domestic fans will not be chuffed with the idea, so the moral/emotional aspects will be dealt with elsewhere.

In any case, that kind of argument does not wash with the clubs or the league. Otherwise, it would still cost a fiver to get into Old Trafford.

The truth is that this idea has no grounding in logic.

The theory is to add a game to the calendar, the points of which will count towards each team's total at the end of the season, with the top five teams seeded.

The first thing to note here is the outstanding unfairness. The top five are seeded so they don't play each other, meaning that they have an extra 'easy' game per season, thus widening the gap even further between the big boys and the rest.

Even within these elite five it is lopsided. What happens if Arsenal draw Derby (or that season's equivalent)? That's nine free points as opposed to the mere six that the rest will get. Essentially the title could be decided by the luck of a draw.

Secondly, this idea is based on the theory that the football-mad residents of Melbourne or Dubai will flock to the games, pouring cash directly from their wallets into the pockets of the Premier League.

Perhaps that will be the case if a Manchester derby magically comes out of the hat, but who in the name of everything holy will care if Wigan and Fulham rock up? Result; half-empty stadium, red faces and jetlag all round.

Thirdly, it's a universally-recognised truth that Premier League clubs play too many games each season. Last season Manchester United reached the final of the FA Cup and semi-final of the Champions League, meaning they played 59 competitive games.

That not enough? Sod it. Why not chuck another trip to Los Angeles in there as well. And people still wonder why the England national team never does a thing at major tournaments...

In Italy they have one cup competition and play 34 league games a season. And have a winter break. Who won the World Cup again?

(And before anyone trots out the 'The players get paid so much so they should earn it' argument, realise that they're not bionic. If I gave you £50,000 and told you to run through that wall, you wouldn't be able to do it.)

Finally, when would these games be played? For the sake of argument, let's say that the Manchester derby does come out of the hat, and it's played in Sydney.

Assuming they play the game at the traditional time of 3pm on a Saturday, that means fans in Stretford and Burnage and Salford will have to rise at 4am to catch the match. Not ideal.

Despite these logical arguments, this has a decent chance of happening because there is money to be made, and never let it be said that the Premier League would let logic get in the way of a nice profit.

[Lineker]

I really hope that this boesn't happen.

[britneyspearsisgod]

The article explains it perfectly for me. There's no disernable reason to do this except for money. That's not to say I don't support such a measure - I'm all for having the games in other nations. It's not a BAD idea. The bad part of this idea is to seed the top 5 and allowing this odd game to be counted towards the season's tally. It gives no-one except the top teams an advantage.

I'm not opposed, but under these current proposals, I don't believe it would work.

[ONO]

Typical of the FA. Threatening tradition just to make a few quid.

[HailtotheYo]

But it's ok for the NFL/MLB to do games over there ?

hmph

Of course, money is the big reason to do it. No shit, at the end of the day that's what it's all about in sports, period. What, you'll gladly take the money from TV here but then turn around and say "fuck no" for wanting a game ? Sure, the grand scheme as it is slated right now isn't a very good way of going about it, but saying that games shouldn't be played over here at all is crap. The exposure would be phenomenal, and despite popular belief, there IS a fanbase here. Hell, with the growing American ownership in Europe, this seems to be inevitable.

Yes, the possible pairings that could emerge might be unfair ... so just work a trip into the season that's already scheduled. Hell, it doesn't even have to be done all at once. Slate half the league at one time and then the other half .... OR just have select teams do it (say Man U/Liverpool .... or Arsenal/Aston Villa ... maybe Tottenham). They'd make sense because of the American ties/possible future ownership.

Edited February 7, 2008 by HailtotheKing

[stokeriño]

Perhaps that will be the case if a Manchester derby magically comes out of the hat, but who in the name of everything holy will care if Wigan and Fulham rock up? Result; half-empty stadium, red faces and jetlag all round.

I love how Fulham/Wigan seems to be everyone's personal definition of a crap game.

[HailtotheYo]

Actually, the American audience wouldn't mind Fulham at all. McBride/Dempsey .....

[Guest jonnocool91]

Yeah, I agree that this idea is just too unfair on teams. It ruins the competition. I'd even prefer the entirity of one of the Cups were played abroad than this. That'd actually produce an advantage aside from the financial benefits, in that it'd help distinguish between the League and FA Cup. One would be known as the cup that's played domestically and the other one would be known as the one that's played abroad. Obviously they wouldn't want the crapper rounds, but the later ones containing Prem teams.

[therockbox]

Yes, the possible pairings that could emerge might be unfair ... so just work a trip into the season that's already scheduled.

[HailtotheYo]

What, you'll gladly take the money from TV here but then turn around and say "fuck no" for wanting a game ?

The key difference is the matches don't have to be scheduled around the TV, if they decided that from next season Sunday Premier League games will be played at three in the morning then there'd be uproar as well.

Why three in the morning ? We get LIVE games anywhere from six AM to 2 PM over here .... what would be the purpose of moving the games ? I don't get that. In fact, in the morning I'll wake up and watch two LIVE premiership games from 10 AM to 1 PM .... so yeah, I'm not following the three in the morning bit ...

The argument could be made for penalizing the fans, but it's not different than the NFL and MLB fans that get "jipped" out of a game

[therockbox]

What, you'll gladly take the money from TV here but then turn around and say "fuck no" for wanting a game ?

The key difference is the matches don't have to be scheduled around the TV, if they decided that from next season Sunday Premier League games will be played at three in the morning then there'd be uproar as well.

[stokeriño]

Sending a cup game (say, the League Cup final) isn't such a bad idea.

I'd like to see what would happen if some mid/lower-table side got to their first cup final in a couple of decades, with the chance of winning their first piece of silverware in even longer, then the home fans were told "Sorry, it's in Beijing. YOU can't be a part of it."

[therockbox]

Sending a cup game (say, the League Cup final) isn't such a bad idea.

I'd like to see what would happen if some mid/lower-table side got to their first cup final in a couple of decades, with the chance of winning their first piece of silverware in even longer, then the home fans were told "Sorry, it's in Beijing. YOU can't be a part of it."

Edited February 9, 2008 by therockbox

[stokeriño]

Please tell me that FIFA actually have the power to block it, rather than just disapprove of it.

Please?

[brenchill]

Please tell me that FIFA actually have the power to block it, rather than just disapprove of it.

Please?

Edited February 9, 2008 by brenchill

[stokeriño]

Gordon Brown's reaction to this amused me.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called on the Premier League to listen to the views of the fans before moving ahead with plans to introduce overseas games.

Mr Brown also believes that the money earned from the foreign matches should be used to keep ticket prices down.

"Fans have to come first and you have to listen to their views on this," he told Radio 5 Live's Eamonn Holmes in an interview broadcast on Saturday.

You can hear all the chairmen across the country screaming "Well what would be the point of that then?!"

[therockbox]

If anyone seriously thinks the revenue gained from this will be used to make it cheaper for us to go and watch matches they're deluding themselves. Look at Liverpool, we're servicing a £300million debt with interest payments of £30m a year - our operating profit over a year has never been that high. This is purely to get a bit more money, despite what Scudamore says.

Edited February 9, 2008 by therockbox