Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

English Premier League Have Another Stupid Idea

  • 07-02-2008 01:45PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


«1345678

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭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?:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


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

    Mike.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


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

    kdjac


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    Man Yoo Vs Liverpool in Croker anyone?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,507 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,606 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


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

    Mike.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,097 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,606 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭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.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,606 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Tusky wrote: »
    ...
    Just wanted to point out the hilarity in your sig.

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,097 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    If it ain't broke...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,097 ✭✭✭✭Tusky


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,575 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    The NFL is not the path the PL should be following :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,176 ✭✭✭Unearthly


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

    Also the reasons Tusky said


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,081 ✭✭✭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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,575 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement