Liverpool FC Forum

by **Rob Sallnow** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:09 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.

It was me that said 'lose-lose scenario' originally and that was in respect of the idea of an overseas mini tournament within a winter break.

People that are calling for a winter break are concerned about recuperation for their players, people wanting matches overseas want meaningful league matches....organising a mini tournament within a winter break addresses neither party's needs...ie a lose-lose scenario....it will even exasperate the former groups issue.

I agree with your sentiments about pre-season tournaments though....especially for a club like Liverpool on the finance side of things.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:35 pm

Rob Sallnow wrote:
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.

It was me that said 'lose-lose scenario' originally and that was in respect of the idea of an overseas mini tournament within a winter break.

People that are calling for a winter break are concerned about recuperation for their players, people wanting matches overseas want meaningful league matches....organising a mini tournament within a winter break addresses neither party's needs...ie a lose-lose scenario....it will even exasperate the former groups issue.

I agree with your sentiments about pre-season tournaments though....especially for a club like Liverpool on the finance side of things.

Ahhh, I see!

Agreed, that scheduling a mini-tournament during a mid-winter break is a non-starter. It has to happen in pre-season for a whole host of logistical reasons--not least because that is the only time when teams will actually consider taking it seriously (as preparation for the league campaign).

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:47 pm

-have teams that finished 13-20 play 4 qualifying games, the 4 winners play the Champions League teams and the UEFA Cup teams play the 4 remaining clubs (9-12). Straight knockout seeded tournament. Teams play a max of 4 games (unless one of the bottom half clubs make it to the finals.

Two main problems is that the goal of the prem proposal was to spread all over the globe, logistical this seems like it would need a host country with many stadia somewhat near each other instead of 5 different host cities with one big stadium that can be (actually preferably) very far away from each other

If it turns into a mickey mouse cup with no big players playing the impact of the tournament would be limited, and the tournament would NEED the big clubs to advance further

by **Rob Sallnow** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:13 pm

JoeTerp wrote:-have teams that finished 13-20 play 4 qualifying games, the 4 winners play the Champions League teams and the UEFA Cup teams play the 4 remaining clubs (9-12). Straight knockout seeded tournament. Teams play a max of 4 games (unless one of the bottom half clubs make it to the finals.

Two main problems is that the goal of the prem proposal was to spread all over the globe, logistical this seems like it would need a host country with many stadia somewhat near each other instead of 5 different host cities with one big stadium that can be (actually preferably) very far away from each other

If it turns into a mickey mouse cup with no big players playing the impact of the tournament would be limited, and the tournament would NEED the big clubs to advance further

I really do think the only viable option...which admittedly won't make anywhere near as much money for Richard Scudamore...is to choose one or two matches per otherwise unaltered season and play them overseas. It would have to be a 'big draw team' team like Liverpool or Man U against a smaller team....and take it out of the smaller team's home game quota....this team's season ticket holders would obviously needed to be sorted out financially and it would be a lot cheaper to 'bribe' 20,000 Fulham fans and Al-Fayad than 73,000 Man U fans.

The Premiership would have to discuss with the NFL how they got the Miami Dolphins to give up one of their eight home games to play in London....bearing in mind the capacity of their stadium is about the same as Old Trafford the revenue bonus for them playing in an 85,000 seat Wembley must have been small....unless NFL tickets are normally relatively cheap, which I doubt.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:31 pm

Reasons why these proposals are a bad idea

1. Even if the total revenue to the Premier League from these games is to be split evenly across the 20 clubs, the rich clubs will still get even richer as they will be the ones who will benefit more from the greater marketing opportunities the games provide. So while the income gap between Premier League clubs and the rest will get even bigger - so will the gap between the rich clubs and the rest within the Premier League.

2. Ordinary fans - who may have followed their club home and away for many years - will be unable to follow their team abroad. The cost of winning a bidding war to host a match will mean that tickets will be priced at the level of the super-rich only.

3. In the same way, travel and time requirements will make matches impossible to the vast majority of supporters.

4. What makes English football unique and so attractive is the passion and vibrancy of the crowd. Trying to recreate that elsewhere is as pointless as trying to experience of London by walking around the old London Bridge in the Arizona desert.

5. This is an easy first step to "football franchising". It may be one game a season overseas to start with, but once that has happened, what is to stop two, five or more games overseas in later seasons? And what if an overseas city bids an outrageous amount to host ALL of a clubs home games?

6. This proposal demonstrates once and for all that the only interest of the Premier League is pure, naked, greed - and that they are happy to put making even more money ahead of the interests of supporters, English football, and the history and traditions of both.

7. The arrogance of Premier League clubs in parachuting their games into foreign countries which have their own leagues and competitions is astounding. How would the FA and the Premier League like it if Celtic or Rangers announced that they were going to play a SPL match at Wembley in order to "enhance and establish the Scottish game on a global basis"?

8. There is a worldwide drive to reduce carbon emissions - including the FA and E-on's own "carbon footy-print" campaign. So how can this level of worldwide travel be justified?

9. The impact on the England team can only be negative - extra matches and extra travel will only put an extra strain on England's top players.

10. Imposing unwanted matches onto foreign shores will inevitably be unpopular with the governing bodies in those countries - the same governing bodies who will be voting on World Cup bidders. Kiss goodbye to England ever hosting the World Cup again!

11. The whole fairness of the league structure will be destroyed by playing an extra match in the League - founded on the principle that every team plays every other team twice. While one team will be drawn against Manchester United or Arsenal, another will be drawn against Derby or Reading? How can this be fair?

12. Already managers and players complain of fixture congestion and playing too many matches. So how will playing an extra match a season, which may involve travel to the other side of the world and back, help solve this problem?

13. January has for over 130 years been home to rounds 3 and 4 of the FA Cup, with replays in the middle of January. Overseas matches and travel can only force unwanted changes to the world's premier Cup competition.

14. This proposal is all about enhancing the Premier League brand and nothing to do with football. How many people in the world support a brand? We support football teams.

15. The Premier League is already the richest league in the world able to pay the highest wages to attract the best players. So what is this extra income needed for?

16. Announcing these proposals without consulting players, managers and supporters shows contempt for all of these key stakeholders in the game.

17. The PL have said that in order to ensure that teams at the top don't play opponents of different strength they will have seeding. This goes against everything leagues are about, which is everyone on the starting line ready to go. Seeding is alien to leagues and would cement the idea that the league is impossible for all but 3 or 4 teams to win - the rest are just there to make up the numbers and make their owners rich.

Ripped from RAWK

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:01 pm

MLS waits for details of Premier League plans
PA

Plans to stage Barclays Premier League games in major cities outside of England have been given a cautious welcome by Major League Soccer in the United States.

The Premier League are to debate staging an extra game abroad starting from the 2010-11 season.

The "international round" of fixtures could be played each January, with 10 matches played abroad in cities such as Hong Kong, New York, Los Angeles, Singapore, Sydney, Johannesburg, Dubai and Beijing.

MLS deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis said that the MLS were intrigued by the idea, but wanted to ensure the plans gained FIFA approval before getting involved.

"We will have to wait and evaluate the proposal," Gazidis said, noting that there were many issues for FIFA to consider beyond the games themselves.

"I don't see it as a negative for MLS, but the implications go beyond these games on their own,"' he added.

"There are implications for the game worldwide. There are implications when matches are taken across borders in this way."

However, if the idea does get the go-ahead, Gazidis wants MLS to be part of it.

"If this were to happen it's something that we would be involved in," he said.

"We are the premier promoter of international soccer in North America and clearly we would like to get involved."

Through their Soccer United Marketing division, MLS promote not only their own competitions but also international fixtures and exhibition tournaments throughout North America.

MLS have worked closely with the Premier League on a number of initiatives in the past, Gazidis said, and he understands why they have chosen to go ahead with the idea.

"We've always had a very close relationship with the Premier League and I know [chief executive] Richard Scudamore well," Gazidis said.

"I think he's a very visionary leader and I think he understands that if the Premier League is going to continue to push its' position forward it needs to be moving forward and not just standing still. Richard is looking to push the envelope but at the same time he understands that he can't push it too far.

"Many leagues are working to become the first 'world league', and the Premier League is looking to take leadership on that," he added.

The American market has already seen this idea in reverse, with the US major leagues taking their own regular-season contests overseas.

The NFL will return to London in 2008 for a regular-season game at Wembley, following the huge success of last year's game between the New York Giants and Miami Dolphins, while the NHL also opened its season with two games in London last September.

In March of this year, Major League Baseball will open its season with a series between the Boston Red Sox and Oakland Athletics in Tokyo.

"One of the phenomena that we've seen around the world is that the exhibition game circuit is less attractive than it was," Gazidis said.

"Football fans around the world are more sophisticated than they've been before and everyone wants to see the real thing. This is why when the NFL went to London they took the real thing and that is why the Premier League wants to export the real thing. There is a thirst for Premier League games."

While he understands why hometown fans are upset by the idea of their team playing overseas, Gazidis rejected the idea that the decision was based on greed.

"I don't associate a word like greed with this," he said.

"Clubs are looking to generate revenue primarily so they can compete for international players in a very very competitive market."

Gazidis said it was up to fans to decide whether such games were a price worth paying for keeping such players in the league.

On protests from fans about the ideas he added: "I'm sure that this is something the Premier League has considered.

"Football going to change. A lot of things we now take for granted would once have been considered revolutionary."

by **Rob Sallnow** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:19 pm

JoeTerp wrote:However, if the idea does get the go-ahead, Gazidis wants MLS to be part of it

"If this were to happen it's something that we would be involved in," he said..
.
.
.
While he understands why hometown fans are upset by the idea of their team playing overseas, Gazidis rejected the idea that the decision was based on greed.

"I don't associate a word like greed with this," he said.

"Clubs are looking to generate revenue primarily so they can compete for international players in a very very competitive market."

Two things from all that....North America is not the market the Premier League are after....it's Asia with it's huge population, growing economy and interest in Western things....just like F1 realised several years ago. America is only really interested in it's own stuff. So in that way going to the US won't be about greed....it'll be tokenism and stupidity.

Second thing....the MLS will have absolutely no role to play in this at all.

by **Sabre** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:23 pm

Here I am, talking to my country mates how much I envy english football professionals, pointing out them how Boxing day and the amount of games played in Christmas is great, how lazy bastárds are our Spanish players, and now this lot want to change everything that makes English game great?

Look, when it comes to football perhaps it's not top of tops technically your football, but do not change a league, an atmosphere a tradition that has made me fall in love since I was a child. And like me many others.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:24 pm

The MLS would certainly have a role, they would need to know what weekend they need to cancel all their matches and what city to send their players to to learn how to play footie (unless we get the reading fulham draw

by **Rob Sallnow** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 pm

JoeTerp wrote:The MLS would certainly have a role, they would need to know what weekend they need to cancel all their matches and what city to send their players to to learn how to play footie (unless we get the reading fulham draw

I didn't think the MLS played in January.

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:46 pm

your right they don't, totally forgot but I am sure they would try and keep their faces in the background as much as possible or assist in promoting the event

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:25 am

Lerner spells out the home truths
EXCLUSIVE By RALPH ELLIS and NEIL MOXEY - More by this author »

Last updated at 21:47pm on 12th February 2008

Aston Villa's American owner Randy Lerner is against the plan to take the Premier League around the world.

The billionaire boss of the MBNA Bank was not at last week's London meeting when chief executive Richard Scudamore spelled out his controversial Premier League plan for a '39th game' to create a platform for global expansion.

So far Villa have not made an official comment because they do not want to break ranks with the other 19 clubs who voted to explore the idea.

But the message from Lerner is that somebody will have to make a very convincing argument for him to change his stance that English football should be played in England.

He backs up his views in the sort of marketing speak that Scudamore and his Premier League cronies will understand: 'The core value of the Premier League brand is the passion of the supporters who follow it.'

Lerner, who also owns American Football side the Cleveland Browns, spoke out in October against shifting match venues.

In the run-up to the NFL game at Wembley between Miami Dolphins and New York Giants, he said: 'I wouldn't be comfortable with Villa v Manchester United, for instance, being played in Cleveland or New York or Beijing.

'You go to Goodison or Villa Park or St James' and the environment is vital. You take two teams and don't have the home fans — and don't have what is brought by the fans who have travelled — then you're dismantling something. I find that concerning.'

Sportsmail has led opposition to Scudamore's campaign and Lerner, who has invested heavily in restoring Villa's tradition and history, is the first significant club owner to spell out the reasons why it is a bad idea.

Lerner said: 'The soul of English football is characterised by tradition.'

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:36 pm

Asian chief slams top-flight plan

Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed bin Hammam says he is strongly opposed to the Premier League's plan of playing games abroad.
Top-flight English clubs are looking at a proposal to extend the season to 39 games and play in five other places.

"We'll vote strongly against it," Hammam told BBC Radio 5 Live. "The Premier League are putting money before responsibility and dignity.

"As far as Asia is concerned, I'm not supportive of this initiative."

The plans to play a 39th round of games in five different locations abroad from January 2011 have sparked widespread criticism.

I appreciate, for example, if the Premier League want to play in Darfur, Somalia or East Timor where they can act as peace makers

Hammam believes the Premier League and its chief executive Richard Scudamore should have thought more carefully about the proposal before it became public.

"I wish the people in charge of the Premier League would think twice about organising any matches outside England in Asia," added Hammam.

"Friendly matches I'm not against. I welcome that. But I cannot digest at all that a different league will be played in another country than its own.

"There was no consultation, I just read about it in the newspapers.

"But the recommendation as far as this is concerned will be no. There's no question of the Premier League organising such a match in Asia.

"It's always my honour to meet with Mr Scudamore and discuss football activities between Asia and the Premier League. I'm a friend of his.

"But I shall be very frank with him and tell him that this does not meet with our acceptance."

Hammam says that instead of trying to cash in on foreign markets, the Premier League should try to use its high-profile status as a force for good.

"I should say that I respect very much the Premier League," said Hammam. "I like to watch the Premier League.

"But they are interfering with the domestic and local competitions in different national associations if they think this idea can be realised.

"I appreciate, for example, if the Premier League want to play in Darfur, Somalia or East Timor where they can act as peace makers.

"If I have a chance to speak to the Fifa president Mr Sepp Blatter, I will tell him my strong opposition to this initiative."

by **laza** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:15 am

Both Australian FFA and Japanese J-leagues have both stated their opposition to the hosting of leagues games in their respective countries as well

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:55 pm

The Premier League’s attempts to go global suffered another blow yesterday when Rafael BenÍtez, the Liverpool manager, launched an outspoken attack on the controversial proposals. In a damning indictment, BenÍtez dismissed the scheme to create an “international round” of fixtures as little more than a cash cow that would unfairly benefit the big clubs.

BenÍtez’s remarks seemed especially pertinent as they implied that it was not only him but also Liverpool as a club that were opposed to the idea, even though Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, is adamant that all 20 member clubs will proceed with the plan. “I’ve talked to Rick Parry [the Liverpool chief executive] about it and we think the idea is not the best,” BenÍtez said.

Parry wrote to the Football Supporters’ Federation at the request of George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, the club’s American owners, outlining Liverpool’s opposition when the proposals were first mooted, albeit in a different form, four months ago.

Liverpool have since voted, along with the 19 other Premier League clubs, in favour of further examination of the plan to play a 39th round of fixtures in five cities around the world in the 2010-11 season, but there is clearly scepticism at Anfield about a project that has attracted widespread criticism at home and abroad.

As well as his opposition to domestic games being played abroad and the departure from the simple “home and away” formula that has served English league football since its inception in 1888, BenÍtez is against the prospect of the top five clubs being seeded - a surprise given that his team may be one of those to benefit.

“I don’t like it,” BenÍtez said. “I think to play another game in another country is not right for this competition. You must play here in England with the same opportunities for everyone. The seeding idea is the reason I don’t like it. It’s important to give everyone the same opportunities.

“If it’s just about money, you can organise a tournament in Hong Kong with the top four if you want and you’ll have the money that you want, but to change the competition in this way is not fair. It’s not a good idea and I don’t think it’s a solution for anyone.

“They want to show everyone the level of the Premier League and in terms of the financial situation it will be positive, but as a manager it’s enough to play 38 games in your country. You don’t need to play more.”

Should Dubai International Capital make an offer to buy Liverpool from Gillett and Hicks, as appears increasingly likely, the club may well find itself in thrall to the proposals at a later date. But, for the time being, BenÍtez seemed to speak on behalf of the club when registering his opposition, even though they would welcome all the revenue they can get with annual interest payments of £30 million to foot after the refinancing package brokered by the Americans last month.

Liverpool FC Forum

Top clubs consider overseas games

Who is online