Premier League To play matches outside of England

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

Hi there, I was just wondering how this will be coded in the next edition of the game?

As they wil have to plan or put into the future, so that when you reach the 2010/2011 season your team has one fixture arranged at a neutral venue.

Will this be possible, or will the fixtures just stay as they are currently?

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

Hi there, I was just wondering how this will be coded in the next edition of the game?

As they wil have to plan or put into the future, so that when you reach the 2010/2011 season your team has one fixture arranged at a neutral venue.

Will this be possible, or will the fixtures just stay as they are currently?

It'll have to be finalised in reality first.

This is only an idea at the moment anyway, so at the moment, SI have nothing to worry about.

why does it have to be another round of matches why cant they just use a current weekend of fixtures, rather than the possibilty of a relegation candidate having another match against manchester united, all it looks likely to achieve is filling pockets and takes integrety away from the game

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turn it upto 11:

all it looks likely to achieve is filling pockets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the only reason this is being considered I'm afraid. Apparantley, there isn't enuogh money in the Premiership just yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bongo-Bongo:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turn it upto 11:

all it looks likely to achieve is filling pockets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the only reason this is being considered I'm afraid. Apparantley, there isn't enuogh money in the Premiership just yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unreal. Billions trade in the premiership, yet thats not enough.

A couple of points. First, I doubt that SI will ever have an answer to anything the day it is announced.

Second, I don't believe it will ever happen, because the loss of English fans disgusted at the whoring out of their clubs will far outweight any financial gain. Even Sepp Blatter wouldn't come up with this.

Imagine a game like Tottenha VS Arsenal Abroad stupidity

or Who want to watch a match like Newcastle vs Derby

I just hope this idea never becomes a reality.

i hope they do it for one season though, so america bid a lot of money and get derby vs fulham or something. but in all seriousness i cannot be done and in the article the guy is trying to kid himself.

I believe that they will offer a weekend ticket in the country that the games are taking place. ie, buy a ticket for Derby v Bolton on the saturday, and get in to watch the Man U v Villa game on the sunday. Obviously the price of the ticket will reflect the cost of two matches. This will ensure that they make their money, and people turn up to the saturday match.

39 games in a season would just look rubbish.

Why not just have a neutral venue friendly abroad between two premiership teams at some point in the season where the winning team gets £250,000 or something like that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Galactus:

Imagine a game like Tottenha VS Arsenal Abroad stupidity

or Who want to watch a match like Newcastle vs Derby </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you hear the score when NUFC played Derby. 2-2. 4 goals, side at the bottom of the table taking the lead twice, goal in the last 5 minutes, hopless defending, a great goal by Giles Barnes. I wouldn't mind watching a game like that.

I also think that the FA should think more about British Fans rather than foreigners. It's a hopeless idea!

i hadnt seen that - what a crap idea!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sandhams:

I believe that they will offer a weekend ticket in the country that the games are taking place. ie, buy a ticket for Derby v Bolton on the saturday, and get in to watch the Man U v Villa game on the sunday. Obviously the price of the ticket will reflect the cost of two matches. This will ensure that they make their money, and people turn up to the saturday match. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As is suggested on the BBC report, 5 host venues will bid for 2 fixtured to be played over a weekend.

I would have thought that the "host" will look to make a profit out of the venture and as well as ticket sales, I would expet they will also get a cut of the TV money from the fixtures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeyt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Galactus:

Imagine a game like Tottenha VS Arsenal Abroad stupidity

or Who want to watch a match like Newcastle vs Derby </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you hear the score when NUFC played Derby. 2-2. 4 goals, side at the bottom of the table taking the lead twice, goal in the last 5 minutes, hopless defending, a great goal by Giles Barnes. I wouldn't mind watching a game like that.

I also think that the FA should think more about British Fans rather than foreigners. It's a hopeless idea! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah but your taking into account that the people know it was going to be a good game, i doubt very much many people are going to go see them on the off chance it may be a good game theyre just going to be like some off the fans we have who support man u and chelsea just because they are big teams

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

A couple of points. First, I doubt that SI will ever have an answer to anything the day it is announced.

Second, I don't believe it will ever happen, because the loss of English fans disgusted at the whoring out of their clubs will far outweight any financial gain. Even Sepp Blatter wouldn't come up with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, you really think Man Utd fans will boycott the other 18 home games because one is being played in China or the USA? You're having a laugh!

I would, yes.

In fact, I'd boycott Premier League football altogether if this stupid proposal came to fruition but I doubt it will (thankfully).

^ This is besides the fact that the big teams will demand an AWAY match overseas, so they can still have 19 home matches and their gate receipts.

No one overseas is going to care which teams go to play. They just want to see their favourite players live in a meaningful game, which previously would have been impossible.

I'm fairly certain the 80,000 seat Meadowlands (where the New York Giants play their home games) would easily sell out a real EPL match, whether it's Sunderland v. Arsenal or Derby v. Reading!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buttgammon:

I would, yes.

In fact, I'd boycott Premier League football altogether if this stupid proposal came to fruition but I doubt it will (thankfully). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The £600 they lose from your season ticket (assuming you have one) will be earned back in approximately 15 purchased seats overseas. Or a few hundred shirt/programme sales. The point is, if they do decide to do it, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

I mean seriously, even if you stop showing up to the matches, you'll probably still watch on TV, and the EPL makes money from their TV deal, so they're fine with home viewers.

I'm not saying i support it, nor am i saying it is going to happen, but to think there are that many Chelsea fans who are going to be ****ed off that they lose their away day trek up to Sunderland is just laughable. It would probably be easier to go to Giants Stadium than take the bloody train to Tyneside!

But to answer the TS: SI won't implement it, because it has never happened IRL, and for now is just a proposal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buttgammon:

I would, yes.

In fact, I'd boycott Premier League football altogether if this stupid proposal came to fruition but I doubt it will (thankfully). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Call yourself a fan? You'd boycott something just because the teams are trying to make money - what a joke.

The only downside i can see is the flights knackering players, but the african cup of nations is more damaging than a single match played abroad.

As to the original post, if it happens SI will include it, they aren't going to do anything until it happens IRL.

I don't like the idea, in fact I hate it. If this was to be implemented it would just show how little the decision makers in football really care about the fans. Unfortunately we don't get a vote, if we did I imagine you would hear us all screaming no from the 2011 Manchester derby in Melbourne.

Seriously though, they probably wouldn't play a game of such huge importance abroad. It would have been common sense to do it with a regular fixture rather than create new ones, but that's football for you.

If it does happen (which I actually can see as we have so many foreign owners and so much greed) then I don't suppose it would be too difficult for SI to put it in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hufton:

so many foreign owners and so much greed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are business men, they own clubs in order to make money, you don't do your job for free, so they don't own a club in order to make a loss.

The lack of common sense on these forums is truly astounding.

I think its unfair that Derby get a say on this proposal anyway.

^ yeah...i doubt severely they would move something like the Manchester Derby abroad.

I'm thinking they're looking at matches that go

[small club] v. [fairly large club, located far away from the small club], with the small club designated the Home club because, frankly, they wouldn't make nearly as much by playing the match at home anyway.

This way, the big club still gets 19 home matches to earn money from, and their away disadvantage is cancelled out by the fact that both teams had to travel, and the fact that the foreign fans will probably support the bigger club.

I'm guessing matches like these would go abroad, if any:

Birmingham v. Tottenham (Korea, perhaps?)

Reading v. West Ham (USA, plenty of Americans on the Reading squad)

Derby v. ANYONE (seriously, how else are they going to get 25,000 fans excited to watch them at a "home" fixture?)

Wigan v. Portsmouth (West Africa, clearly!)

Imagine NYPD policing a derby game or Leeds v. Cardiff (a potential Prem fixture in 3 yrs. time). There would be 100 shot dead and 1500 doing 5-10 in Sing Sing... not nescesarilly a serious point but it could happen.

LOL...come on now...we're not THAT bad!

American stadia don't even separate the away fans from the home fans...that's how wimpy American "hooliganism" is!

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chas (Psyatika):

LOL...come on now...we're not THAT bad!

American stadia don't even separate the away fans from the home fans...that's how wimpy American "hooliganism" is! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh... we separated home and away fans for the U.S.-Mexico "friendly" last night.

I think a more interesting question to ask about this problem is, how will the local associations respond?

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?

A possible alternative would be to look at something like the American sports "all-star game"

Two games; one pre-season, replacing the Charity Shield; one mid season in the !winter-break!

The teams involved would be EPL representative teams (could be North/South, fan votes etc. - something which means that players from all of the 20 EPL teams are fairly rep'd) rather than actual club teams.

Different countries bid for the right to host the games on an annual basis, like international tournaments.

Discuss

This link: BBC: What they say on overseas games shows, I think, just how far it is from reality yet - certainly not something SI would include as it isn't finalised!

Many of the objections raised there are valid - the argument about throwing off the sporting integrity by having unbalanced schedules is a particularly strong one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buttgammon:

I would, yes.

In fact, I'd boycott Premier League football altogether if this stupid proposal came to fruition but I doubt it will (thankfully). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Call yourself a fan? You'd boycott something just because the teams are trying to make money - what a joke.

The only downside i can see is the flights knackering players, but the african cup of nations is more damaging than a single match played abroad.

As to the original post, if it happens SI will include it, they aren't going to do anything until it happens IRL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I call him a fan and I'd hope Premier LEague fans call for a mass boycott

The clubs even thinking about this is a complete and utter disgrace. It just shows how greedy *****s they are. The coudln't give a crap about the fans so long as they get the €€€'s.

This is also wrecking the hard work the smaller leagues are doing. The League of Ireland are doing hard work to try and promote the game to the Premier League obsessed country. As well, there's other places like America and Asia that are trying to build the game there. Basically, what the PL is doing is ****ing on them and knocking them back to square one.

I don't think you'd be too happy if you supported a smaller club in a smaller league, that was trying to make progress at home and some suits who are thinking about nothing but the €€€'s came along and just undermined that league by playing their own leagues game there.

This actually reminds me of when Wimbledon FC were nearly based in Dublin, Ireland. Thank god that did not happen...

C'mon fans of PL clubs. This would be whoring your club out to the people of other countries, that the clubs just see as cash cows. If this goes ahead, please boycott the games and make the losses of this venture greatly exceeding the gains.

After all it's the ENGLISH Premier League

Don't just boycott the games.

Boycott everything related. Cancel your Sky/Setanta subs, don't bet on games, don't buy merchandise, don't trade with 'Corporate partners' - Barclays, Budweiser, Wrigleys etc.

Go and watch Football Leagues/Non League games - even Rugby. Anything but let them win this one.

Fans United.

Being a season ticket holder at arsenal now for nearly 10 years, i've seen many a title or champions league place decided in that 38th game of the season, what if the premier league is decided in america, and IMO this is completely unfair. If the top 5 from last year are seeded and can't get each other fair enough, but a team like Arsenal could get say , Spurs, while a team like manchester united could get Derby, now if this was the last day of the season how would this be a fair outcome to the premiership? Also these draws could also get claimed as match fixing, no matter how professional they are, and IMO the english f.a has done this to get money for themselves, as im sure they will be charging for people to watch this draw, AND they will surely be getting a LOT of money from which ever country gets these games.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by displaced_seagull:

Don't just boycott the games.

Boycott everything related. Cancel your Sky/Setanta subs, don't bet on games, don't buy merchandise, don't trade with 'Corporate partners' - Barclays, Budweiser, Wrigleys etc.

Go and watch Football Leagues/Non League games - even Rugby. Anything but let them win this one.

Fans United. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree wholeheartedly. Only one problem. My addiction to my team is too strong for me to see that through. And I just don't know if we could turn the (rightful) wave of objection into a powerful enough movement to stop it happening. FC United did not bring about the Glazers' ouster at Old Trafford. Indeed, the ground got bigger, and they still fill it. You can criticise all you like the type of fans that fill those seats, but it shows the awesome power of the big clubs to put bums on seats, no matter what objectionable things might be going on. And I just cannot imagine masses of football supporters cancelling their Barclay's account. I happen to get excellent service in my local branch.

Like I said, I agree with your plan of action. I'm just not sure that a big enough movement could come about to make it work.

Tbh i thought it was an April Fools joke until i realised it was February...

I'd imagine this would become a league of some sorts, like the World Cup, with rotating venues.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x42bn6:

I'd imagine this would become a league of some sorts, like the World Cup, with rotating venues.

It's still a ridiculously stupid idea, of course, because Wigan vs. Birmingham is really going to bring in the crowds. :-/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be the exact same Premier League, but with one additional game for each club. Effectively, you'd play one random team three times, instead of two. And that would be decided by a draw, which would also choose the venue. Fulham vs. Middlesbrough in Dallas, anyone?

And I think you're be pretty gutted if you were a relegation candidate and had to play an extra game against Man. United!

I think the top sides would be exempt from it via a seeding method.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x42bn6:

I think the top sides would be exempt from it via a seeding method. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike7077:

I hope this idea dies a death. And soon. It's just appalling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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!

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 (joking!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. :-/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

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!