English Premier League NAGLR

JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
edited February 2008 in Strut Central
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2254528,00.html
Premier League prepares to go globalEnglish football is facing its most significant change in more than a decade after the Premier League revealed plans to stage competitive matches abroad.Under a proposal unanimously approved by the 20 member clubs yesterday, the league will invite cities to bid for the right to host matches in an "international round" of games to be played in January, starting in the 2010-2011 season.The additional round, which will take the total number of games played by each club to 39, will see 10 matches played in five international host cities over a single weekend, with all the games screened live in the UK and around the world. The additional fixtures, which will see each club playing a third game against one opponent, will be decided by a draw.Article continuesThe plan surprised many in the football world and drew immediate criticism from supporters' groups, but Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said it was a logical move for the league."This concept recognises the truly global appeal of the Barclays Premier League whilst understanding that the traditions of the English game have always underpinned our success," he said.Many sports are exploring opportunities beyond their national boundaries. International football friendlies between countries other than England have become routine in London.The extra fixtures are expected to enhance the league's next round of TV rights negotiations. In its last three-year deal, from 2007-08 to 2009-10, the league banked ??2.7bn from domestic and overseas rights. "We have to accept that globalisation in sport is with us and that as the world's favourite game football is going to be affected more than any other sport," Scudamore said.Supporters' groups were united in opposing the move. Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the Football Supporters Federation, called for the proposals to be dropped if a majority of season ticket holders oppose the move.The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, offered only a lukewarm response: "We understand the Premier League's desire to take the game to new audiences. But the implications of this proposal go beyond the Premier League and careful consideration is needed before any decisions are made."
Normally I take all the bizarre and shit moneymaking schemes the Premier League puts forward with an air of resignation but this is truly a whole new level in insanity.I love how they put forward that having one extra game will even it out despite the obvious influence it will have on the table if, say, Man U or Arsenal get a team like Derby for this tie.

  Comments


  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    its a wierd one. i can't imagine a league being decided upon this extra fixture, the point of a league is that element of random is removed..they should consider playing things like the Charity Shield, FA Cup semis, League Cup semis and perhaps even the final (who gives a fuck right?) abroad instead.

    I watched part of the NFL game at Wembley recently and thought it was a kinda cool idea, even if they wrecked the pitch for the Croatia game!

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    its a wierd one. i can't imagine a league being decided upon this extra fixture, the point of a league is that element of random is removed..they should consider playing things like the Charity Shield, FA Cup semis, League Cup semis and perhaps even the final (who gives a fuck right?) abroad instead.

    I watched part of the NFL game at Wembley recently and thought it was a kinda cool idea, even if they wrecked the pitch for the Croatia game!

    Yeah, seriously, they could do the whole of the league cup tournament abroad for all it's worth and the charity shield abroad sounds like a great idea. However having actual league matches played abroad just further cheapens the premier league beyond the levels it's already reaching with it's foreign friendlies in the middle of seasons.

  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

    could happen, the Champions League does a pretty good job at filling that void.

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

    could happen, the Champions League does a pretty good job at filling that void.

    Yeah it's been mooted for a long time now but I don't see it happening before they at least revise the G14 list.

  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

    could happen, the Champions League does a pretty good job at filling that void.

    Yeah it's been mooted for a long time now but I don't see it happening before they at least revise the G14 list.


    from wiki:
    On 15 January 2008 the G-14 and UEFA came to an agreement. FIFA and UEFA would pay compensation for international injuries and selection after a World Cup or European Championship and, in return, the G-14 agreed to disband on February 15, 2008. However a new European Club Association which will feature 100 teams from all 53 UEFA nations, with at least one team from each country, will be set up in its place.


    around 2000, there was a lot of European Superleague talk, it was more about trying to annoy FIFA into listening to their ideas.

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

    could happen, the Champions League does a pretty good job at filling that void.

    Yeah it's been mooted for a long time now but I don't see it happening before they at least revise the G14 list.


    from wiki:
    On 15 January 2008 the G-14 and UEFA came to an agreement. FIFA and UEFA would pay compensation for international injuries and selection after a World Cup or European Championship and, in return, the G-14 agreed to disband on February 15, 2008. However a new European Club Association which will feature 100 teams from all 53 UEFA nations, with at least one team from each country, will be set up in its place.


    around 2000, there was a lot of European Superleague talk, it was more about trying to annoy FIFA into listening to their ideas.

    Yeah I thought I'd seen something about that in the papers. I don't see how the 100 teams from 53 nations would work though as a model to start building a league plan from. After all, if these clubs are really interested in making money they need to focus on the big teams and the profitable countries (e.g. the far east) far more than, say, a Wednesday night tie in Poland.

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
    building the foundation for the pan-europe super league ??

    could happen, the Champions League does a pretty good job at filling that void.

    The CL only exists in the first place because UEFA couldn't get their original proposal for a superleague sanctioned by FIFA, and this was the closest they could get to it. As a supporter of a team who won the European Cup four times back when they only let actual League Champions enter the competition, I'd welcome the return to that format with open arms. Even though it would effectively invalidate our fifth European Cup win, it'd shut up all those people who claim we didn't deserve to be there because we finished the season thirty-odd points adrift of the actual Champions (who we beat on the way to Istanbul anyway).

  • ZomBZomB 397 Posts
    The best way to avoid this.....bring back the violence!

    Im sure if fans start invading pitches, throwing seats at each other & abusing coppers on horses they might reconsider this idea.

  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    bring back the Cup Winners Cup! but really though, with the Prem it'd be sad to not have Arsenal or Liverpool in it just cos United won the league, much like with Barca/Real or Milan/Inter/Juventus.

    i was really not mad at Liverpool for winning that 5th CL, and i support united.
    in other news, i saw a list of the 17 clubs that missed European football as a result of the ban on English teams post Heysel, its kinda funny that Everton were pretty much the worst affected apart from Liverpool.

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
    its kinda funny that Everton were pretty much the worst affected apart from Liverpool.

    Heh. You don't hear too many Bluenoses laughing about it. More likely to hear them say something like, "We'd have dominated Europe if it wasn't for you murdering Red bastards..."

  • i like harry redknapp's reaction:

    "It would be like the Harlem Globetrotters. We will probably end up playing one game a year in England and the rest around the world."

    i think it's a bad look on the part of the premiership if they do it. keep the prem where it belongs, in england and don't mess up english football anymore than you have already.

  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    its kinda funny that Everton were pretty much the worst affected apart from Liverpool.

    Heh. You don't hear too many Bluenoses laughing about it. More likely to hear them say something like, "We'd have dominated Europe if it wasn't for you murdering Red bastards..."

    yeh, it don't feel quite right putting Heysel and 'kinda funny' near each other in a sentence.

  • jleejlee 1,539 Posts
    I agree with most of what's been written above. Stupid move on the PL's part and I am sure its gonna be fodder for the papers for the next few weeks.

    My beef is really more that they are trying to make it an actual league game. As an American who can't get over to England with ease, I would love it if some premiership teams played games in the states, but I do not think they should be league games.

    I understand trying to build the game up in other countries, but I think the PL should have Pre-Season friendlies or at most the Community Shield game.

    but what really pisses me off about this move, is that it is just going to put more gasoline on the fire that is "foreigners involvement with the PL". Stupid move on the PL's part.

  • JimsterJimster Cruffiton.etsy.com 6,885 Posts
    I am for it. Well, not AGAINST it. Isn't arguably the biggest game in club football, the Champions League final, always played abroad already? It will be glamour-puss matches anyway. No relegation squabblefests. Does it really matter to the PL where these odd few matches are played?

    Money is the bottom line of course - is has to be when good players are ??20,000,000 each. The Sky PPV rights to the games are surely the biggest money-spinners for the club and they are not likely to dry up here in The UK just yet. So the bulk of the league games WILL still entice the UK audience to pay to see them.

    I am sure they have done the maths. The population is smaller here but the UK Pay Per View revenue must be greater than what they could get if they moved Man U*ited to India and charged the percentage of Indians with Sky a similar fee. Gate revenues are irrelevant in the PL. Man U could play to an empty Old Trafford and still make a good profit.

    Even though India has a billion potential PPV customers, it's not YET worth a club playing heaps of matches in a place with no significant domestic football of their own, in an attempt to generate more PPV revenue than they would in the UK.

    So I don't see it hampering the PL too much at the mo. In fact, it would be interesting to see if the big PL clubs set up overseas "Feeder" clubs, where they could give their B-sides some shine for revenue from PPV there.

    What do our US brethren think about playing regular season NFL matches abroad? I mean, the teams only play 16 regular season games so doesn't this mean that at least one teams' season ticket holders miss out on that match?

    I can understand the NFL trying to expand, I like the game, but I can't see it ever being played in our cash-strapped UK schools. They had the London Monarchs here for a while but unless it spins money, all such ideas will be scrapped.

    And as the Strut always proves, there are some cultural divides that can never be bridged?

  • jleejlee 1,539 Posts
    In fact, it would be interesting to see if the big PL clubs set up overseas "Feeder" clubs, where they could give their B-sides some shine for revenue from PPV there.

    There is already collaboration with teams in the MLS & EPL. Off the top of my head, I know Arsenal has a relationship with the Colorado team. Although I don't think any loaning of players has started yet (perhaps to do with the non-uniformed schedule of the MLS).

    Also, the USL (US's second leage) has some collaboration with even smaller clubs. Apparenlty a new club in Austin TX, will be working with Stoke City to some degree.


    I was at a Barca game a few years back in NYC and it was amazing. I know the PL could make money hand over fist if they had games in the states, and especially in Asia.

    but, I just don't see why they want to make it an actual fixture. If they are already insisting that top teams wouldn't play each other, then to me it has no great value in exposing the great play of the PL. Seeing CFC beat the sh_t out of Derby is boring to watch whether you see it in London or New York.

    Again, I think they should start with something like the community shield game, see how that works and go from there.

    I commend the PL for thinking forward, but adding another fixture is not the way to do it in my opinion.

  • can one of the soccer heads succintly explain why this is a bad idea? like it's gonna screw up the schedule or something?

  • jleejlee 1,539 Posts
    can one of the soccer heads succintly explain why this is a bad idea? like it's gonna screw up the schedule or something?

    As I understand it, yes it would screw up the schedule by adding this additional game. And more of a concern to teams/fans, would be how it could change the outcome of a season.

    As it stands, 20 PL teams currently play each other 2x in a season (once at home, once away). The team with the most points at the end of the season wins the league. As important, teams that do bad get relegated to a lower league, and other teams play for access into other European tournaments. In short, the total number of points can affect not just where you stand, but how much money you will make from other tournaments or conversely lose money from being relegated to a lower league.

    If you add this extra game, it already screws up the idea of playing each team 2x (so fairness is being questioned). As now you would play an extra game with one team. As insinuated above, because points matter so much, that could suck (or be great) if you play a good (or bad) team.

    making the situation odder, apparently the 4 top teams (which are usually Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal & Liverpool) will not ever play each other in this extra game.

    so as it stands right now, it just seems not to make much sense with how the current league is organized.

    add to that a current rift in the league of foreign involvement (foreign ownership & foreign players) and folks in the UK are starting to argue that their league is being taken away from them. Maybe a bit too critical, but there is some legitimacy in that argument.

  • The random draw element is what puts me off this... i think it's unfair that in a close title race with two teams on the same amount of points one could be drawn against a shitty team and win easily, whereas the other may be drawn against a tougher team which would mean they could lose the league title based on luck.

  • can one of the soccer heads succintly explain why this is a bad idea? like it's gonna screw up the schedule or something?

    As I understand it, yes it would screw up the schedule by adding this additional game. And more of a concern to teams/fans, would be how it could change the outcome of a season.

    As it stands, 20 PL teams currently play each other 2x in a season (once at home, once away). The team with the most points at the end of the season wins the league. As important, teams that do bad get relegated to a lower league, and other teams play for access into other European tournaments. In short, the total number of points can affect not just where you stand, but how much money you will make from other tournaments or conversely lose money from being relegated to a lower league.

    If you add this extra game, it already screws up the idea of playing each team 2x (so fairness is being questioned). As now you would play an extra game with one team. As insinuated above, because points matter so much, that could suck (or be great) if you play a good (or bad) team.

    making the situation odder, apparently the 4 top teams (which are usually Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal & Liverpool) will not ever play each other in this extra game.

    so as it stands right now, it just seems not to make much sense with how the current league is organized.

    add to that a current rift in the league of foreign involvement (foreign ownership & foreign players) and folks in the UK are starting to argue that their league is being taken away from them. Maybe a bit too critical, but there is some legitimacy in that argument.

    thanks!

    the foreign involvement (foreign ownership & foreign players) thing is interesting and I'm not sure there's a parallel in the US. I always assumed most US baseball/football/basketball franchises are owned by American individuals or entities...I could see a shitstorm if the bin Laden investment group tried to buy the Cowboys or some schitt....
Sign In or Register to comment.