Is this the beginning of the End, of our beautiful game...?

[Stoof]

But what about the investment of overseas fans? I would love to know the figures, but surely that must be at least comparable (if not more than) what UK fans pay to support their team? There are, what? 10 million footy fans in England. There must be ten times that at the very least around the world.

I don't think talking about "investment" is the right way to discuss this - I balked at KY's use of it and explained it wasn't simply the FatCats' decisions. Overseas fans are brilliant. Awesome. Massive respect to you guys. And if all the clubs were to do a quick tour in pre-season and play matches against each other, then that's fair enough but you can't seriously think you can rationalise it enough to a league game?

And if we truly gave a shite about making it an ENGLISH Premier League, would we not ban foreign owners? Or players? Or supporters at the turnstile?

There's extremes and there's extreme extremes though, Matt. Surely the constant factors have always been English clubs, from areas of England, competing in a League at English grounds. That can't change - that's the fundamental definition of an English league surely?

The Premier League has become far bigger than 99.9% of people realise. Danny Levy has been on Sportscentre a lot today saying it has become impossible to ignore looking into this idea.

I think the reason mostly expats are supporting - actually, thats not fair. I absolutely don't support this. I just don't oppose it. Especially as I've heard very little about it so far - this proposal, is that we understand how big EPL is, and how more could be done to bring the game to the fans: which is ironic given most English-based supporters objections to this is that this is the opposite of what they think will be achieved.

The English Premier League is big. Well that's well done to England. Carry on. Same format. Keep it successful. You're going to piss off a lot of people if your simply marketing the club and whoring it out to other countries. We're already whored out to the max anyway, increasing ticket prices, new shirts every year - but there are extremes, and taking a domestic League game away from the country it's based in is nothing, nothing, but lunacy. There is no other argument to that. It compromises the definition of domestic league. Yes? Can you disagree with that?

One final comment: It would be nice for some of the people objecting to this to at least admit that researching and debating this proposal has merit.

If it's a league game - then no, not for me, it doesn't have any merit. It undermines our league and the proposed destination country's league.

 

[Kendall]

It will only serve as to damage the host country's football league developments.

Why do we feel we can monoplise other countries?

 

[deathtoarsenal]

It's one extra game in the middle of January earning each club around $5m. Money is good for the game regardless if you like it or not although you'll do well to remember it's not your investment is it?

:rofl:

Money is good for the game?

It's not our investment? :lol: Football clubs wouldn't be rich without people like me paying to go to games and watch football on Sky. So it actually is our investment since they're taking our game away from us.

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Sorry, Bill, I disagree.

This feels to me like a half-baked, poorly thought through, management consultant idea for "maximising global brand value" at the expense of ordinary fans.

There is simply no way of adding a 39th game to the EPL schedule which will not render the entire competition unfair, and Scudamore has explicitly acknowledged this in his Orwellian doublespeak utterances.

So, if there's no 39th game, the proposal could only work by moving a regular home or away fixture to "neutral" territory at the end of a long haul flight somewhere. For this to be fair, each club would have to have one home and one away match played in an overseas venue each season, and I don't see any value in this.

I'm all for spreading the beautiful game, and Spurs have done this successfully in recent years with, for instance, pre-season tours of South Africa and visits to townships. I'm totally against this "exploitation of global brand value" BS at the expense of ordinary fans.

I absolutely agree with that, yanno. Really I do. Logistically it may be able to happen, and even though I cheekily mentioned earlier that really it's no less fair than the current fixture decider, I know thats not true.

All bar the bit in bold. 'Ordinary fans': is that the 10 million or so (anyone with figures would be gratefully received) in the UK or the 500 million elsewhere who follow the EPL? :cheekygrinwinkyyouknowwhatImeannudgenudge:

I don't think talking about "investment" is the right way to discuss this - I balked at KY's use of it and explained it wasn't simply the FatCats' decisions. Overseas fans are brilliant. Awesome. Massive respect to you guys. And if all the clubs were to do a quick tour in pre-season and play matches against each other, then that's fair enough but you can't seriously think you can rationalise it enough to a league game?

Sorry mate. I just checked and see your use of investment is in inverted commas. It is a horrible phrase and I fully agree with what you say.

And as I mentioned earlier, how about the Charity Shield coming around the world? Sounds like a winner on every level to me.

There's extremes and there's extreme extremes though, Matt. Surely the constant factors have always been English clubs, from areas of England, competing in a League at English grounds. That can't change - that's the fundamental definition of an English league surely?

Quite probably. And that is 100% what I expect the Chairman to find out. And when (or maybe if) they do say "sorry, this is toss" I'll support that decision. But... (and I'll come back to this)...

The English Premier League is big. Well that's well done to England. Carry on. Same format. Keep it successful. You're going to piss off a lot of people if your simply marketing the club and whoring it out to other countries. We're already whored out to the max anyway, increasing ticket prices, new shirts every year - but there are extremes, and taking a domestic League game away from the country it's based in is nothing, nothing, but lunacy. There is no other argument to that. It compromises the definition of domestic league. Yes? Can you disagree with that?

Not really. In principle, you (and everyone else in the thread) is right. I've not said otherwise. This is just a much bigger discussion than a simple "stick it up your bollix" which is all the thrift it seems to be receiving on here and in the British press.

If it's a league game - then no, not for me, it doesn't have any merit. It undermines our league and the proposed destination country's league.

Ok. Fair enough. Speaking from Malaysia and Singapore, this round of fixtures would have 0 impact on the local league. In fact, it would enhance it enormously as people would actually go to games and be excited about seeing football on these shores. But I do understand where you're coming from. And I think it probably would undermine the Premier League.


You know the really awful truth about this proposal though?

That what English football fans - such as yourselves - think doesn't matter. I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't, (mainly because it's pretty obvious that it should) but this is a proposal that frankly doesn't affect you at all. Any more than the scheduling of fixtures affects me, living here in Malaysia.

And I know that stinks but thats the reality.

 

[yanno]

I absolutely agree with that, yanno. Really I do. Logistically it may be able to happen, and even though I cheekily mentioned earlier that really it's no less fair than the current fixture decider, I know thats not true.

All bar the bit in bold. 'Ordinary fans': is that the 10 million or so (anyone with figures would be gratefully received) in the UK or the 500 million elsewhere who follow the EPL? :cheekygrinwinkyyouknowwhatImeannudgenudge:

Fair play to you! :up:

I do wish there was a way of spreading the EPL globally without ruining it as a proper competition. But unfortunately, I think cable & satellite TV, and the Internet, is the only practical solution.

Plus pre-season friendlies.

More importantly - 3-0 to the Tottenham!!!! :grin:

 

[KentuckyYid]

:rofl:

Money is good for the game?

It's not our investment? :lol: Football clubs wouldn't be rich without people like me paying to go to games and watch football on Sky. So it actually is our investment since they're taking our game away from us.

No it's not your investment. It's your passion just like any other hobby you spend money on. You don't expect a financial return on your gate fee or for buying the shirt or having the credit card... You do so because you love the club and nothing else

Consider those who invest their cash into the club? They want maximum returns and if that means one league game per season gets played overseas then so be it. Go back to the days before SkyTV investment and clubs relied on gate fees etc and you'd have a very minor point about it being your investment but the clubs major source of income doesn't come from DTA turning up at WHL. They've moved on and diversified just like any other business.

You question mark 'money is good for the game?'. Do you doubt that? Take a look at leagues around the world without the massive corporate investments and reconsider your view.

 

[KentuckyYid]

I love those OVERSEAS DOMESTIC League games.

They're great. And not at all a load of bollocks.

Am I being thick or something? I notice all the arguments "for" this are (in the most part) by ex-pats moved on. Now I love you guys, you're awesome - but the domestic league stays domestically. That just has to happen. Anything outside of the league - that can't influence: championships, european qualification and relegation - is fine. Which basically means NOTHING to do with the League.

KY -- "you'll do well to remember it's not your investment" - I'm afraid it fucking is mate. Without the fans paying the gate fees, for the merchandising, for the holiday packages, for the Tottenham Hostpur credit cards - you'll find it's more our investment than anyone else.

And at the end of the day, it's not really an "investment" opportunity - it's a football club, plying its sporting trade in England where it competes in the English Premier League completing all the matches in England.

Surely that isn't up for debate? If it is - then I'm afraid I've missed something along the way, and there's been thousands wasted on my education. I'm almost a bit disgusted that people could suggest playing a league game outside of the country.

ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE ... IN ENGLAND. And as much as I'm a ****, I'm afraid that's an "End of."

Richard Scudamore = Dick Dollarwhore.

Once again for the supporters its a passion and not an investment. They're two completely different things.

Moving on

Over in D&D it's people like me who have been called 'Little Englander' for somewhat England for English views yet from what I'm seeing there are more 'Little Englanders' in this thread than any other thread I've seen!

 

[Bonjour]

Bloody hell guys.

It's not like anyone's said Jehovah..

 

[DFF]

from what I'm seeing there are more 'Little Englanders' in this thread than any other thread I've seen!

Unfortunately, i have to agree there. I'm surprised.

And i don't necessarily agree with this idea, other than we get 5m in our back pocket and gain a few more fans, which means i'm rather "meh" overall. Although, i think jetting our players half-way across the world in the middle of the season is not the brightest idea. That said, i think the Ex-pats (Bill and KY, more precisely) that have made their cases are being the more reasonable ones here, and not for their own gain either (as if a game's ever going to be held any where near Kentucky :wink.

I mean, for fuck's sake. The yanks put us to shame on this one. When the Dolphins-Giants regularly scheduled game was moved to London, i didn't see nearly as much whinging. And that was one of 16 regular season games taken away from them, not one being added on top as in this case.

~600m people around the world watch the PL every week. Is throwing them a game such an injustice for you? I could understand ST holders being peeved having one of their regular 38 league games taken away from them. But, it's not taking any of the regular quota of 38 league games away. They're not taking anything away from anyone (apart from money, they'll always take that).

It just shows me how many of you have taken having the best league in the world on your doorstep for granted.

Either way, it doesn't effect me. I'll be watching the game via stream or tv no matter where in the world it is. I'm not for jetting our players off to Mars mid-season either. But i've yet to see arguments against - aside from yanno and one or two others - that basically say anything other than "I'm a Little Englander... short and stout, here's the bullshit that i spout". Or something...

Jehovah.

 

[Real_madyidd]

:rofl:

Money is good for the game?

It's not our investment? :lol: Football clubs wouldn't be rich without people like me paying to go to games and watch football on Sky. So it actually is our investment since they're taking our game away from us.

(1) Most clubs make a loss.

(2) Money in the top flight filters down.

(3) they are not taking anything away from anyone.

(4) we don't yet know what the 39th game is all about, no details havbe even been put forward yet.


Let's all calm down.

 

[KentuckyYid]

That said, i think the Ex-pats (Bill and KY, more precisely) that have made their cases are being the more reasonable ones here, and not for their own gain either (as if a game's ever going to be held any where near Kentucky :wink.

Chicago is only a 5hr drive ray:

(which has hosted US v England before.)

 

[DFF]

Only a 5hr drive. Screw that.

I suspect NY and LA would be first in line in America anyway.

Erm, anyway...dey took arr games!!!

 

[SpurSince57]

I mean, for fuck's sake. The yanks put us to shame on this one. When the Dolphins-Giants regularly scheduled game was moved to London, i didn't see nearly as much whinging. And that was one of 16 regular season games taken away from them, not one being added on top as in this case.

One of just sixteen. Another doomed-to-failure attempt to export their own unique brand of insomnia cure to the UK.

And, as far as I understand it, the result of that game, whatever it was, had no real bearing on ultimate issues, because those are decided by a series of play-offs (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'd as soon watch synchronised swimming as gridiron). DOW (I think, apologies if it was someone else) made one of the few sane suggestions as to how this might work; having a play-off tournament between the top eight sides staged in some exotic location. The one great virtue of that is that it could break the monopoly of the 'Big Four' on CL places—and for that reason it's a non-starter, as the 'Big Four' would veto it tout suite.

I'm not anti the idea per se. I just can't see any way in which it can be implemented equably. Keegan, probably unwittingly, put his finger on the underlying flaw; he's all in favour, provided the Barcodes' extra game isn't against United. Leaving aside the fact that Blyth Spartans would probably fancy their chances against the Barcodes right now, that's it.

The only truly equable solution I can see is to draw five pots of four teams, unseeded, and have them play two games of the 38 in the same overseas location.

And, DFF, don't forget that Spurs supporters overseas get to see far more more games on the box than those living in the UK.

Anyway, FIFA appears to be against the idea, UEFA has certainly given it the thumbs-down, the Nips say it's a no-no and other Asian associations will probably follow suit. So we're arguing about nothing, and the EPL High Command has presented itself as a bunch of bell-ends. Again.

 

[DFF]

One of just sixteen.

Sorry, 16 regular season games for each team. Only one fixture was exported.

Regular season games do count. Not everyone gets to the playoffs, only the teams with the best win-loss records (to put it simply). And since there is only 16 regular season games for a team, every one of them counts. Lest we forget, it was the Giants that beat the Dolphins in London, and of course they went on to win the Superbowl.

One idea that i would nick from the NFL (or American sports in general), is that of the idea of the Pro Bowl. A kind of All-Star game where the best players in the NFL play in an exhibition game. It takes place in Hawaii, because they don't have an NFL team and so is the only real chance they get to see an "pro" game, albeit an exhibition game.

Make up two teams of the best players in their respective positions from the PL and get them to play an exhibition game somewhere in the world. Obviously some managers would be up in arms about injuries and whatnot, but then you could say the same about testimonials. I think it would be a good start.

And, DFF, don't forget that Spurs supporters overseas get to see far more more games on the box than those living in the UK.

Yeah, but you can stream games and see the same amount as those overseas. All that's required is a computer and basic knowledge of the internet. If people are lacking in those, then they can complain to Sky et al.

I have a sneaky suspicion many of these governing bodies (FIFA and UEFA primarily) are against the idea simply because they don't want to see the most popular league in the world achieve even greater dominance.

 

[KentuckyYid]

I have a sneaky suspicion many of these governing bodies (FIFA and UEFA primarily) are against the idea simply because they don't want to see the most popular league in the world achieve even greater dominance.

I agree with this 100% and that they didn't think of it first...

 

[SpurSince57]

There are other differences between the NFL and the EPL. In the first instance, gridiron is seeking converts. Football has no need of them. In the second, Giants v. Dolphins was one game from the regular schedule, not ten additional ones.

Bill's notion of exporting the Charity Shield seems the only workable one—two top EPL teams in a competitive but basically meaningless fixture that no-one in England is that bothered about.

It now transpires that the original suggestion of one game being played abroad came from Eggy, back in October, and that the FSF wrote to all club chairmen/CEOs canvassing their views. Only three clubs replied—Liverpool, Boro and Sunderland—and all were dead set against it. You would have thought that Statler and Waldorf at Liverpool would have been prime movers, but apparently not. Without the backing of the clubs, this idea is a non-starter.

The FA will also want its full pound of flesh in return for okaying the proposal.

 

[Kendall]

(2) Money in the top flight filters down.

I disagree, hense why there is a new club going into administration every week.

 

[Bonjour]

I guess some people care a lot more over the sport than I do.

Whether I agree or disagree with this proposal, I'm not going to get too riled about it.

I think those who have lived / are living in another country have a better perspective on this, and are being the most level headed.

 

[Tickers]

Only three clubs replied—Liverpool, Boro and Sunderland—and all were dead set against it.

Not quite. Boro and Sunderland were dead against it; Liverpool's reply was a tad more cryptic, saying something along the lines of "we're not investing in a new stadium to see games taken away from it". Obviously the madcap 'international round' would take no games away from New Anfield, so they were able to sound all dead against it to the fans' group, while still able to wholeheartedly back the scheme that ended up getting the publicity.

 

[LSUY]

In the first instance, gridiron is seeking converts. Football has no need of them. In the second, Giants v. Dolphins was one game from the regular schedule, not ten additional ones.

Also the NFL didn't give the game to the highest bidding city, like the Premier League is planning but to the one they thought was most deserving.

Germany and China would have made the NFL a lot more money but because Britain has the most university and amateur teams outside of North America the NFL decided that the game has more chance of developing in the UK than anywhere else.

I'm not dead set against the odd international game but I want it to be for the right reasons. The current proposal of adding one more game to the season, auctioning the games off to the highest bidder and seeding the top teams so they can't play each other are all the wrong reasons. The current proposed plans will do more damage to the league than good.

As Bill and SS57 have said, the only workable idea is the Charity Shield.