Liverpool FC Forum

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:41 am

these "people" I refer to are the current homo sapien inhabitants of the earth. LFC2007, you quoted a small part of my response to bamaga who insulted me for being American and claimed to keep "football english" which is even bolder than keep "english football english"

Imagine if football had never expanded past the shores of england. everything single aspect about the game was fully and entirely english, only the english would care about it, and I suspect even then, that the english MIGHT not care about it as much as they do now. There would be FAR less money, and therefore FAR less talent, maybe not even full time professionals. I guess one good thing would be no silly injuries from International Friendly matches

. But there would be a SERIOUS lack of diversity in ideas and most likely in attacking flair, the development of the game would be very slow.

But we all know how impossible that world would have been. Because England was a global empire its ideas (and football, rugby, and crickett) spread around the globe, and thank goodness, because as much as some of you want to deny it, the game is better off for being a global game, excuse me I mean THE global game.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:01 am

JoeTerp wrote:these "people" I refer to are the current homo sapien inhabitants of the earth. LFC2007, you quoted a small part of my response to bamaga who insulted me for being American and claimed to keep "football english" which is even bolder than keep "english football english"

Imagine if football had never expanded past the shores of england. everything single aspect about the game was fully and entirely english, only the english would care about it, and I suspect even then, that the english MIGHT not care about it as much as they do now. There would be FAR less money, and therefore FAR less talent, maybe not even full time professionals. I guess one good thing would be no silly injuries from International Friendly matches . But there would be a SERIOUS lack of diversity in ideas and most likely in attacking flair, the development of the game would be very slow.

But we all know how impossible that world would have been. Because England was a global empire its ideas (and football, rugby, and crickett) spread around the globe, and thank goodness, because as much as some of you want to deny it, the game is better off for being a global game, excuse me I mean THE global game.

Always take what Bamaga says with a pinch of salt

Football was bound to pass these shores anyway*, it was destined to, because most Homo Sapiens have feet.

Ball, foot. Foot, ball.

It couldn't be simpler, even Bamaga can understand it, well not quite (

).

* The Chinese claimed it was played over there a few thousand years ago but they're chatting b0llocks I can assure you. Proper (Association) football began here - FACT.

BTW, you have us to thank for American football :eyebrow

by **Pedro Maradona** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:24 am

Platini is 100 percent right....the idea is ludicrous and its funny the people who want it arent season ticket holders but rarely if ever go to games.
It is not for the overseas fans benefit that the premier league want it, its for greed, the same greed that has accelerated astronomically since Sky got involved.
If the overseas fans dont want to go and watch their own local teams then they should have to make the effort to travel to england to watch English premiership games. The whole idea is actually disgusting, the greed and arrogance behind it is appalling.

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:13 am

JoeTerp wrote:these "people" I refer to are the current homo sapien inhabitants of the earth. LFC2007, you quoted a small part of my response to bamaga who insulted me for being American and claimed to keep "football english" which is even bolder than keep "english football english"

Imagine if football had never expanded past the shores of england. everything single aspect about the game was fully and entirely english, only the english would care about it, and I suspect even then, that the english MIGHT not care about it as much as they do now. There would be FAR less money, and therefore FAR less talent, maybe not even full time professionals. I guess one good thing would be no silly injuries from International Friendly matches . But there would be a SERIOUS lack of diversity in ideas and most likely in attacking flair, the development of the game would be very slow.

But we all know how impossible that world would have been. Because England was a global empire its ideas (and football, rugby, and crickett) spread around the globe, and thank goodness, because as much as some of you want to deny it, the game is better off for being a global game, excuse me I mean THE global game.

Nothing to do with Homo sapien Joe, more to do with Homo American. Understand these couple of American tw@ts that are running our club guve you Yanks a bad name, not that you dont really have a good name accross the GLOBE tbf.

Money money money is all that talks in this sad state of affairs in football in its present climate. The greedmasters of the Prem want just another quick buck, Yanks to my dismay are getting involved now with British soccer, Derby, us, Man U. I wouldnt suprise me one Iota to find that the Yanks at these respected clubs are backing this proposal.

Thje way I see it the Yanks have sniffed the money come running accross the pond quicker than they did when we blew the bugel (sp) back in the second world war.

Before to long its going to become razz ma tazzed, now doubt as in the 94' world cup the Yanks will want the rules changed so they can fit all the fake tv commercials in. It makes me sick thinking about it TBF.

And then ontop of that, you a ble.edin yank are all for this round the world farce. You've epitimised the yanks there for me, "Globalise" it more, make more money, play more games to make more money, travel the world to show off the prem. I aint asking you to walk on eggshells, well I am, but just have a bit of respect for the game itself and the millions who travel the length and Breadth of Britain each week to watch their team.

"NO TO RAZZ MA TAZZ"

"KEEP FOOTBALL BRITISH" :buttrock

by **dawson99** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:12 am

hehe, he said homo

by **Rob Sallnow** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:28 am

dawson99 wrote:what they should have is a winter break and mini tournaments abroad.

If we lived in a climate that had a predictable, harsh winter period like Russia or Sweden then I could undestand the need for a winter break.....but most people wanting a break are concerned about needing a break in the constant playing. To then have a series of mini tournaments overseas in this break would negate the purpose of the break and force more league and cup games to be played at other times.

Richard Scudamore's arguement (or a covering excuse for the real reason of making money out of Asian fans that normally only buy fake shirts and some TV coverage) seems based on his opinion that overseas fans are not content with the pre-season friendlies and mini-tournaments but would like to see competitive games, so the mid-season break tournaments would not be sufficient to satisfy that and would create congestion in the rest of the season.....a lose-lose scenario.

The only legitimate reason for playing LEAGUE games overseas would be to celebrate a notable anniversary of the Premiership (20 years?) or top flight English league football where a number of games could be played (but not a whole round as currently proposed) as part of a series of special events during that season.....that would involve the Premiership having to compensate the season ticket holders for the inevitable loss of a home game.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:01 pm

I guess to satisfy S@ints plea for a fair league, which is the only legit argument that I can sympathize with, the premier league could instead pay an over the top premium to the first 10 teams that are willing to sacrifice a home game, typically, these would be poorer clubs who would be willing to alienate their fans and deny them a home game for a high enough price, and I am sure every club would have its price that it would be willing to do this for ( I hope ours would be high enough to wipe off the debt AND sign Mascherano And start some construcition, but there is still a number that exists and if someone were to pretend there wasn't I would call them too idealistic) Anyway, obviously, LFC, would never have to sacrifice a home match under these rules, because it would be in the premier leagues best interest to "pay off" the 10 poorest clubs that need the money the most. I do have a feeling that under this system the league would take a bigger than normal chunk out of future international TV deals, but even so it should work out well for all parties involved. S@int gets to keep the purity of the schedule, the "big 4" 's benefit from playing international games in already quite apparent, the smaller clubs get paid off for sacrificing a home game, the prem makes money in the long term, and my hope or guess is that the 10 poorer clubs would try and think of something to overcompensate to its fans for them only having 18 home games instead of 19

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:13 pm

JoeTerp wrote:I guess to satisfy S@ints plea for a fair league, which is the only legit argument that I can sympathize with, the premier league could instead pay an over the top premium to the first 10 teams that are willing to sacrifice a home game, typically, these would be poorer clubs who would be willing to alienate their fans and deny them a home game for a high enough price, and I am sure every club would have its price that it would be willing to do this for ( I hope ours would be high enough to wipe off the debt AND sign Mascherano And start some construcition, but there is still a number that exists and if someone were to pretend there wasn't I would call them too idealistic) Anyway, obviously, LFC, would never have to sacrifice a home match under these rules, because it would be in the premier leagues best interest to "pay off" the 10 poorest clubs that need the money the most. I do have a feeling that under this system the league would take a bigger than normal chunk out of future international TV deals, but even so it should work out well for all parties involved. S@int gets to keep the purity of the schedule, the "big 4" 's benefit from playing international games in already quite apparent, the smaller clubs get paid off for sacrificing a home game, the prem makes money in the long term, and my hope or guess is that the 10 poorer clubs would try and think of something to overcompensate to its fans for them only having 18 home games instead of 19

Which again wouldn't be fair, as 10 clubs would lose the advantage of playing a match at home, and would play a game on neutral ground.

Leave the fkn League alone, and play the Coca Cola CUP abroad. Then no one is upset and everyone is happy.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:30 pm

s@int wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:I guess to satisfy S@ints plea for a fair league, which is the only legit argument that I can sympathize with, the premier league could instead pay an over the top premium to the first 10 teams that are willing to sacrifice a home game, typically, these would be poorer clubs who would be willing to alienate their fans and deny them a home game for a high enough price, and I am sure every club would have its price that it would be willing to do this for ( I hope ours would be high enough to wipe off the debt AND sign Mascherano And start some construcition, but there is still a number that exists and if someone were to pretend there wasn't I would call them too idealistic) Anyway, obviously, LFC, would never have to sacrifice a home match under these rules, because it would be in the premier leagues best interest to "pay off" the 10 poorest clubs that need the money the most. I do have a feeling that under this system the league would take a bigger than normal chunk out of future international TV deals, but even so it should work out well for all parties involved. S@int gets to keep the purity of the schedule, the "big 4" 's benefit from playing international games in already quite apparent, the smaller clubs get paid off for sacrificing a home game, the prem makes money in the long term, and my hope or guess is that the 10 poorer clubs would try and think of something to overcompensate to its fans for them only having 18 home games instead of 19

Which again wouldn't be fair, as 10 clubs would lose the advantage of playing a match at home, and would play a game on neutral ground.

Leave the fkn League alone, and play the Coca Cola CUP abroad. Then no one is upset and everyone is happy.

Exactly. Where is it written that overseas fans won't be satisfied unless it's a league match their hosting?* Pre-season tournaments overseas are great for the clubs and for the overseas fans so why not stick with that format?

*And, if they aren't satisfied, well, I'm sorry, but that's just too bad. One of the downsides of following a world sport is that it more than likely gets played on the other side of the world. Find a way to stump up the cash to make the trip** or resign yourself to the fact that you'll have to watch league matches on telly.

**Anyway, who wants to see a game out of its proper context? I want to watch Liverpool playing in England/Europe, surrounded by our supporters and enjoying all of the sights, sounds, smells and tastes that make up the match-going experience. I don't want to see Liverpool play Fulham in Foxboro, Mass. with blue paint and "Home of the Patriots" festooned everywhere. I would honestly feel cheated.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:34 pm

but it would be the clubs choice to sacrifice their home field advantage, and since the international game would be considered a home match for the club, I am sure they would get a high ticket allocation percentage and it could possibly tilt a nuetral football fan of the local area towards their side. And if they were playing against of the "big 4" yes the big club is going to have a pretty large support section, but you have to assume the fan base of the other big 3 remaining combined should be bigger, and should all want to root against the big 4 opponent. And s@int if you HAVE to choose would you rather 19 home 19 away with a plus one neutral or 10 teams electing to play a home game abroad?

Rob the poster above me explained how a mickey mouse cup abroad is actually a lose lose scenario

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:40 pm

Play the Coca Cola cup pre-season so it then becomes a win win situation. Our League doesnt get spoiled and foreigners get to see a "meaningful game", while at the same time reducing the "clutter " of midweek games during the season.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:42 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:I guess to satisfy S@ints plea for a fair league, which is the only legit argument that I can sympathize with, the premier league could instead pay an over the top premium to the first 10 teams that are willing to sacrifice a home game, typically, these would be poorer clubs who would be willing to alienate their fans and deny them a home game for a high enough price, and I am sure every club would have its price that it would be willing to do this for ( I hope ours would be high enough to wipe off the debt AND sign Mascherano And start some construcition, but there is still a number that exists and if someone were to pretend there wasn't I would call them too idealistic) Anyway, obviously, LFC, would never have to sacrifice a home match under these rules, because it would be in the premier leagues best interest to "pay off" the 10 poorest clubs that need the money the most. I do have a feeling that under this system the league would take a bigger than normal chunk out of future international TV deals, but even so it should work out well for all parties involved. S@int gets to keep the purity of the schedule, the "big 4" 's benefit from playing international games in already quite apparent, the smaller clubs get paid off for sacrificing a home game, the prem makes money in the long term, and my hope or guess is that the 10 poorer clubs would try and think of something to overcompensate to its fans for them only having 18 home games instead of 19

Which again wouldn't be fair, as 10 clubs would lose the advantage of playing a match at home, and would play a game on neutral ground.

Leave the fkn League alone, and play the Coca Cola CUP abroad. Then no one is upset and everyone is happy.

Exactly. Where is it written that overseas fans won't be satisfied unless it's a league match their hosting?* Pre-season tournaments overseas are great for the clubs and for the overseas fans so why not stick with that format?

*And, if they aren't satisfied, well, I'm sorry, but that's just too bad. One of the downsides of following a world sport is that it more than likely gets played on the other side of the world. Find a way to stump up the cash to make the trip** or resign yourself to the fact that you'll have to watch league matches on telly.

**Anyway, who wants to see a game out of its proper context? I want to watch Liverpool playing in England/Europe, surrounded by our supporters and enjoying all of the sights, sounds, smells and tastes that make up the match-going experience. I don't want to see Liverpool play Fulham in Foxboro, Mass. with blue paint and "Home of the Patriots" festooned everywhere. I would honestly feel cheated.

I would hope the prem would not allow games to be played in foxboro since they have a plastic pitch.

But I think the idea is there are a LOT of global fans who cannot afford to come to England, but love great football, and their only local footie options are cr@p. I don't think this plan is meant to make it easier on the people who already come once a year or once every other year.

Pre-season tournaments are usually only great overseas if you are a big club like LFC, I think this plan is meant to help bridge the gap between 1 and 20, and by making the game count, you ensure that teams are going to field their best players (unless Rafa is managing) and that they game is going to include some excitement on the pitch

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:42 pm

JoeTerp wrote:Rob the poster above me explained how a mickey mouse cup abroad is actually a lose lose scenario

How is it lose-lose? Pre-season tournaments are revenue generators for the club, they increase match fitness and create important bonding opportunities for the team and they provide overseas fans with an opportunity to see their teams play. Is it the same as seeing a competitive league match? Of course not but there is no obligation that it should be. If a few overseas fans find that unacceptable, tough luck--there's no way the league should be undermining the integrity of the competition for the sake of winning a few more fans.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:44 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:Rob the poster above me explained how a mickey mouse cup abroad is actually a lose lose scenario

How is it lose-lose? Pre-season tournaments are revenue generators for the club, they increase match fitness and create important bonding opportunities for the team and they provide overseas fans with an opportunity to see their teams play. Is it the same as seeing a competitive league match? Of course not but there is no obligation that it should be. If a few overseas fans find that unacceptable, tough luck--there's no way the league should be undermining the integrity of the competition for the sake of winning a few more fans.

not all premier league clubs can afford or draw much attention on their own at pre-season tournaments

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:46 pm

JoeTerp wrote:But I think the idea is there are a LOT of global fans who cannot afford to come to England, but love great football, and their only local footie options are cr@p.

I'm sorry but that's what television is for. Putting a smile on a few thousand overseas fans' faces is a shockingly small return for perverting the integrity of the competition.

Liverpool FC Forum

Top clubs consider overseas games

Who is online