English Premier League Have Another Stupid Idea

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/7232390.stm

The English Premier League is considering playing some matches overseas, BBC Sport has learned.

At a meeting in London on Thursday, all 20 clubs agreed to explore a proposal to extend the season to 39 games.

Those 10 extra games (ie one team plays another) would be played at venues around the world, with cities bidding for the right to stage them.

Mike.

homerjay2005

why is this such a stupid idea? there are markets to be exploited and if the clubs agree, then there is no problem,

wonder would we get united v liverpool in croker?:)

mike65

The games would count in the points race! Imagine if Man Utd draw Derby and Arsenal draw Everton for example?

Mike.

KdjaCL

Thats an excellent idea, stupid amount of money to be made from that.

kdjac

abelard

mike65 wrote: »

The games would count in the points race!

That's basically all that needs to be said on why that idea is terrible.

This idea cannot be worked in that context. Exhibition games are pointless and won't draw in the requisite revenue, an extra match per season is terrible for the reason above, keeping it at 38 matches per season and having some of them abroad is still terrible due to issues like home advantage being taken away.

whiskeyman

Man Yoo Vs Liverpool in Croker anyone?

Blazer

Top 5 teams seeded so they avoid playing each other?
This just proves that it's meaningless...can you imagine if Arsenal are 2 points behind MU and they're drawn against each other for the last match of they season...now this would be one to get overseas fans involved worked up over..not ARsenal/MU against the lower teams.

Mitch Connor

mike65 wrote: »

The games would count in the points race! Imagine if Man Utd draw Derby and Arsenal draw Everton for example?

Mike.

exactly - i can see the merit in playing a game abroad; but personally i think it should be just one game each season, and that game should be the Community Shield. No one really cares about it, it is not classed as a competitive fixture by the FA in any way, so why not.

Extending the league to 39 games is a joke - the league table would no longer be fair at the end of the season because every club would have played a fixture different to someone else. As you say, can you imagine if the United and Arsenal were level on points at the end of 38 games, and the 39th game saw United play the team relegated in 20th and Arsenal played the team that were in third....

homerjay2005

Tauren wrote: »

As you say, can you imagine if the United and Arsenal were level on points at the end of 38 games, and the 39th game saw United play the team relegated in 20th and Arsenal played the team that were in third....

well with the way that uniteds draws go, we would be guaranteed to get the toughest possible game. i can see it now, united v spurs in the Winonesoon stadium in Hong Konk.

i cant believe people are dismissing this as negative already. its an even playing field and all the clubs have agreed to it. the fact that there is bidding, means there is an unbelieveable amount of dosh to be made. i also see a trend here - 5 top teams seeded and 5 cities, meaning basically cities bid for the top teams and then get 3 others. i can see this "draw" being rigged to keep everybody(as in the bidding cities) happy!!:eek:

mike65

I'd like to see who'd bid what for say Reading v Boro or West Brom v Charlton.

Mike.

Tusky

Hilariously awful idea. Would make the premiership unfair for reasons already stated. I cant even believe that some people in this thread are positive about it.

Imagine if utd played Derby 3 times in a season and everyone else twice while Arsenal played Man City 3 times and everyone else twice. How is that fair ?

This is purely to create extra money, greedy ****ers. Are they not making enough as it is ?

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well with the way that uniteds draws go, we would be guaranteed to get the toughest possible game. i can see it now, united v spurs in the Winonesoon stadium in Hong Konk.

i cant believe people are dismissing this as negative already. its an even playing field and all the clubs have agreed to it. the fact that there is bidding, means there is an unbelieveable amount of dosh to be made. i also see a trend here - 5 top teams seeded and 5 cities, meaning basically cities bid for the top teams and then get 3 others. i can see this "draw" being rigged to keep everybody(as in the bidding cities) happy!!:eek:

how can you not dismiss it? the whole point of the league is that it balances the fixtures over 38 matches, a 39th game would ruin that and give an unfair advantage to certain teams. How can you say it is an even playing field - one team would end up playing the likes of Derby 3 times a season, while another would get Chelsea, or Arsenal, or Liverpool, or United - what the hell is even about that?

MrJoeSoap

Very weird, I was just thinking this morning about how the NFL and NHL play the season openers or regular season games abroad now, and wondering how long it would take for the Premiership to do it.

The main problems are:

1. This idea is completely ridiculous. Extending the season to allow it to happen makes no sense whatsoever. The only way it might actually work is if a normal game, say Sundays Manchester derby was played in Hong Kong or something.
2. If a regular game in a 38 game season was played abroad, the fans of each team would more than likely kick up a fuss. It works in Ice Hockey because the sides play each other quite regularly, and in NFL because its generally an early to mid-season game and the fans haven't quite gotten into the swing of things. Plus the US sports are used to franchises moving so one game played abroad isn't going to create a whole lot of disappointment.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why is this such a stupid idea? there are markets to be exploited and if the clubs agree, then there is no problem,

Maybe its a problem because it makes the season unbalanced.

KdjaCL wrote: »

Thats an excellent idea, stupid amount of money to be made from that.

kdjac

Excellent for who?

whiskeyman wrote: »

Man Yoo Vs Liverpool in Croker anyone?

Not going to happen. Allowing soccer in was hard enough, allowing an English Premier League match? Forget about it.

homerjay2005

Tauren wrote: »

how can you not dismiss it? the whole point of the league is that it balances the fixtures over 38 matches, a 39th game would ruin that and give an unfair advantage to certain teams. How can you say it is an even playing field - one team would end up playing the likes of Derby 3 times a season, while another would get Chelsea, or Arsenal, or Liverpool, or United - what the hell is even about that?

first off, derby wont be in the league when this comes about, so please stop using them as an argument.:p

its just one extra fixture that ALL clubs have agreed to, so i cant see what the problem is. its not like its being forced on them, if it was, we would hear about it. its a risk they all have to take. your basing an arguement on what COULD happen. likewise, united COULD get say Fulham, Arsenal COULD get sunderland,chelsea COULD get reading and so on and so on.

remember, the gap between the big 3 and the rest is pretty big, take out a core group of about 3 or 4 more clubs and you have pretty even fixtures. in otherwords, bar 1 or 2 obvious teams like say everton or spurs (and remember theres still no definate "top 5" (hell, liverpool may not even be in it on current form:p:p),the big teams would all expect to beat them in a neutral venue on any given day.


at the end of the day, its a draw and all teams have agreed to it. im all for it anyway.

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

first off, derby wont be in the league when this comes about, so please stop using them as an argument.:p

its just one extra fixture that ALL clubs have agreed to, so i cant see what the problem is. its not like its being forced on them, if it was, we would hear about it. its a risk they all have to take. your basing an arguement on what COULD happen. likewise, united COULD get say Fulham, Arsenal COULD get sunderland,chelsea COULD get reading and so on and so on.

remember, the gap between the big 3 and the rest is pretty big, take out a core group of about 3 or 4 more clubs and you have pretty even fixtures. in otherwords, bar 1 or 2 obvious teams like say everton or spurs (and remember theres still no definate "top 5" (hell, liverpool may not even be in it on current form:p:p),the big teams would all expect to beat them in a neutral venue on any given day.


at the end of the day, its a draw and all teams have agreed to it. im all for it anyway.

I don't care if they all agreed to it - that doesn't stop it from being a bad idea.

Also, I said "THE LIKES OF DERBY".

Terrible idea, and one i hope goes no further.

_blank_

Tusky wrote: »

...

Just wanted to point out the hilarity in your sig.

:rolleyes:

Mr Alan

this is a ridiculous idea. really ridiculous. and between this and the other thread about changing the way penos and ET is done, i really fear that its only a short amount of time before "soccerball" is ruined forever.

Tusky

DesF wrote: »

Just wanted to point out the hilarity in your sig.

:rolleyes:

I cant take credit for it man, it was all you.

Savman

If it ain't broke...

Tusky

homerjay2005 wrote: »

first off, derby wont be in the league when this comes about, so please stop using them as an argument.:p

its just one extra fixture that ALL clubs have agreed to, so i cant see what the problem is. its not like its being forced on them, if it was, we would hear about it. its a risk they all have to take. your basing an arguement on what COULD happen. likewise, united COULD get say Fulham, Arsenal COULD get sunderland,chelsea COULD get reading and so on and so on.

remember, the gap between the big 3 and the rest is pretty big, take out a core group of about 3 or 4 more clubs and you have pretty even fixtures. in otherwords, bar 1 or 2 obvious teams like say everton or spurs (and remember theres still no definate "top 5" (hell, liverpool may not even be in it on current form:p:p),the big teams would all expect to beat them in a neutral venue on any given day.


at the end of the day, its a draw and all teams have agreed to it. im all for it anyway.

grrr. Can you not understand the reason why its an awful idea. The premiership is completely fair in how it is laid out. Every team plays each team twice so everyone has equal chance to beat or be beaten by said team.

If you start messing around with that and having teams play certain teams 3 times it becomes completely unfair.

You could potentially have a situation whereby someone wins the premiership on the basis of a good draw for their 39th game! Almost like a cup competition. Awful awful awful.

KdjaCL

Works for american football quite well, as a regular game in a faraway place it will make money and thats the bottom line.

Pats and Shels were to do this before play a league game in Giant Stadium on paddys day (98 i think it was) 30,000 tickets were preordered but company organising it went bust and it never happened.

as a money making idea its a good one how its implemented could be its downfall.



kdjac

dsmythy

They're definitely taking their inspiration from the NFL on this one. I don't like the idea. The ONLY way i might even think about it is if two teams we're matched up at random and they played both their games that season on neutral ground abroad. Even then I'm not a huge fan.

Mr Alan

The NFL is not the path the PL should be following

Unearthly

It's the English domestic league, so every game should be in England. Simple as that.

Also the reasons Tusky said

MrJoeSoap

KdjaCL wrote: »

Works for american football quite well, as a regular game in a faraway place it will make money and thats the bottom line.

Yes, that works quite well. But it doesn't add extra fixtures to the season and tip it off-balance (not that the NFL is balanced as it is).

KdjaCL wrote: »

as a money making idea its a good one how its implemented could be its downfall.

As a money-making idea it does make sense, but if people realise thats all that it is it will get sussed and fall flat on its face.

LeixlipRed

The idea in theory is great. Just look at the success of the NFL game in London this year. And american football hardly has as high a profile worldwide as the Premiership. The unbalance fixtures part problem would have to be sorted. The only way to do it is to take a home and away fixture for each team and play them abroad. ie Man U v Everton play two games abroad that season. Or the weaker teams give up home advantage possibly. As for playing in Croker. Perfect oppurtunity to laugh at the barstoolers. I wonder will any Crazy Gang for Dublin supporters turn up

Jazzy

DesF wrote: »

Just wanted to point out the hilarity in your sig.

:rolleyes:

well in fairness Des, u have said before how the only real liverpool fan u know that lives here uses all his holiday time and days off every year to go see them play. and you think that it is reasonable...
giving up that much to be (at the end of the day) entertained is INSANE and if thats the standard u put your expectations at u can expect ppl to rip the piss outta ya

MrJoeSoap

Mr Alan wrote: »

The NFL is not the path the PL should be following

What does that mean? Whats wrong with the NFL?

300,000 were watching the Superbowl ending at 3am on Monday morning (not even a bank holiday) on BBC alone in the UK. The game was also shown on Sky.

dsmythy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The idea in theory is great. Just look at the success of the NFL game in London this year. And american football hardly has as high a profile worldwide as the Premiership. The unbalance fixtures part problem would have to be sorted. The only way to do it is to take a home and away fixture for each team and play them abroad. ie Man U v Everton play two games abroad that season. Or the weaker teams give up home advantage possibly. As for playing in Croker. Perfect oppurtunity to laugh at the barstoolers. I wonder will any Crazy Gang for Dublin supporters turn up

Harsh on a team fighting relegation.

abelard

It's even worse on teams fighting relegation. Two teams equal on points in 17th and 18th going into the last game of the season. One gets Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal, the other gets a team in 12th-16th.

While the argument that the gap between the big three and the rest is large enough that they should generall beat any of the other teams in a neutral venues is true to some extent, either of these relegation teams is highly unlikely to beat one of the big three abroad, but would have a more than reasonable chance to beat the 12-16th place team. It would be entirely unsatisfactory for any relegation battle to be settled in such a way

MrJoeSoap

abelard wrote: »

While the argument that the gap between the big three and the rest is large enough that they should generall beat any of the other teams in a neutral venues is true to some extent

I'd imagine these foreign games would feel like home games given the fan-base of the "big three + Liverpool" (as it seems to be known now) outside the UK.

shane86

homerjay2005 wrote: »

wonder would we get united v liverpool in croker?:)

whiskeyman wrote: »

Man Yoo Vs Liverpool in Croker anyone?

Id like to here from the EL supporters here........

Sh1te idea imo. Do we really want to be hosting a large amount of Ingerland fans in Dublin on a regular basis?

Mr Alan

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

What does that mean? Whats wrong with the NFL?

Nothing is "wrong" with the NFL, but American football and Football are two different sports. In the same way i dont think Football should be run or organised like golf is, i dont see the NFLs way of doing things as being one that should be replicated by European leagues in order to simply increase revenue.

Football in Europe has a lot of history and tradition attatched to it, this should not be destroyed by the marketing men who dont really care about the game. (perhaps it already has been)

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

300,000 were watching the Superbowl ending at 3am on Monday morning (not even a bank holiday) on BBC alone in the UK. The game was also shown on Sky.

how many people were watching the X-Factor final? Does that mean that is the way the music industry should be run?

I watched the Superbowl myself(and quite enjoyed it), but it is very "american", for want of a better word. Football shouldnt be.

_blank_

Jazzy wrote: »

well in fairness Des, u have said before how the only real liverpool fan u know that lives here uses all his holiday time and days off every year to go see them play. and you think that it is reasonable...
giving up that much to be (at the end of the day) entertained is INSANE and if thats the standard u put your expectations at u can expect ppl to rip the piss outta ya

You see.

Some people see football as a product, purely there to entertain them. (these are the people who are advocating this idea, imo).

To others, football means a bit more than that.

This idea is ridiculous by the way.

It's a chance for day trippers to not have to make a day trip.

MrJoeSoap

DesF wrote: »

Some people see football as a product, purely there to entertain them. (these are the people who are advocating this idea, imo).

To others, football means a bit more than that.

Spoken like a true First Division fan! That league couldn't entertain to save its life!

You going tonight?

_blank_

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

You going tonight?

Yeah, to see me mates the Kearneys.

Oh, and Georgie.

Jazzy

DesF wrote: »

You see.

Some people see football as a product, purely there to entertain them. (these are the people who are advocating this idea, imo).

To others, football means a bit more than that.

thats super duper and all, but just like religious fanatics who try and impose that their way of thinking is better and superior to the ppl who "just dont know" you can expect to get ripped on. You are level 10 at football Des

_blank_

Jazzy wrote: »

thats super duper and all, but just like religious fanatics who try and impose that their way of thinking is better and superior to the ppl who "just dont know" you can expect to get ripped on.

Youa re comparing me to a religious fanatic?

Nice, maybe I should declare a jihad on you?

Jazzy wrote: »

You are level 10 at football Des

I don't even know what this means tbh.

I never claim to be "better" than anyone else.

People can do whatever the fúck they want tbh.

Bounty Hunter

completley off topic i know but Man utd vs Liverpool or any other prem game would not be allowed to be played at Croker ever by the GAA. letting the national team play there when lansdowne road is out of order is one thing having two English teams play there trying to get more revenue / promotion for the English game / league is one hell of another thing alltogether.

Tusky

DesF wrote: »

I never claim to be "better" than anyone else.

!

MrJoeSoap

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Not going to happen. Allowing soccer in was hard enough, allowing an English Premier League match? Forget about it.

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

completley off topic i know but Man utd vs Liverpool or any other prem game would not be allowed to be played at Croker ever by the GAA. letting the national team play there when lansdowne road is out of order is one thing having two English teams play there trying to get more revenue / promotion for the English game / league is one hell of another thing alltogether.

.

_blank_

Tusky wrote: »

!

Go on and quote me saying it.

You seem to like quoting me.

If you find one quote from me claiming to be better than anybody I'll stop posting on Soccer, and stop annoying the Premierleague fans.

Mr Alan

I'm better than Des.

At everything.

Fact.

Trampas

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the excuse the managers will use after one of these games.

"The players are tired after there flight back from Japan."

with the extra couple of million in their back pockets

Tusky

DesF wrote: »

Go on and quote me saying it.

You seem to like quoting me.

If you find one quote from me claiming to be better than anybody I'll stop posting on Soccer, and stop annoying the Premierleague fans.

I LOVE quoting you.

_blank_

Tusky wrote: »

I LOVE quoting you.

Well then, if you are going to accuse me of stuff, prove it.

Or STFU tbh.

You are making yourself look a little bit silly.

Villain

Ok so it is a stupid idea for all the reasons others has stated HOWEVER:

The Premier League's income from the sale of overseas TV rights has already increased from £178m in 2001 to £625m for the current deal that runs until 2010.

Broadcaster NowTV paid around £100m for the rights to Hong Kong alone.

Small clubs need money to try and compete with the larger clubs and well if they want money this is one way of getting it!!!

MrJoeSoap

Villain wrote: »

Small clubs need money to try and compete with the larger clubs and well if they want money this is one way of getting it!!!

I am assuming the bigger clubs will also get money so the gap won't actually narrow at all...

leninbenjamin

Jesus F%cking H Christ.

Calm down the lot of ye.

it's one game. it'll be one game out of 39. all the clubs agreed. clearly they are willing to accept the chance of the fixture not necessarily being a favourable one in order to reap the financial benefits, so why can't the fans?

anyone who thinks the premiership is completely fair in it's fixture list as it is are deluding themselves. some teams always get good luck and bad luck in the creation of the fixtures, coupled with TV f*cks up any chances of the season being completely fair. Like United not having to play Chelsea until the end of the season last year perhaps? that suited United's prospects a lot better than Chelsea's. if anything the prospect of an extra might add a bit more spice to the run ins.

this is the type of thing that could cement the premiership as the biggest league in the world. that would be good for you the fans of said premiership clubs you know.

prendy

thinking bout this, and the only way i can see it working is take one game week out of the 38 and play all 10 matches abroad.
pick a week at random....say week 10 then draw for a city to play each one in. that way each team has an equal chance of "losing" a home game but if its done over a few years it'll even itself out.

as said before a 39 game season is unfair.


and as for the poster who said the PL has a higher profile than NFL....WTF????
a BILLION people watch the superbowl every year.

Villain

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I am assuming the bigger clubs will also get money so the gap won't actually narrow at all...

There's a difference of a gap being some clubs being able to spend 40 million a year and others able to spend 10 million a year and than if the bugger clubs have say 60 million a year and the smaller have 20 million, i.e. the smaller clubs could buy more players from abroad.

I'm not saying I agree with the idea just stating why clubs may agree, imo it would create a huge divide between the Championship and Premier League.