Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:22 am

Rob Sallnow wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:The Premier League is an English league.

The Premier League is a World League played in England but other than that I'd agree with you.

It's a league that consists of English teams, governed by an English FA, with mainly English supporters, in England.

It's only a 'world league' in the sense that many foreign players and managers ply their trade within it, and it carries worldwide appeal.

by **Rob Sallnow** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:27 am

LFC2007 wrote:
Rob Sallnow wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:The Premier League is an English league.

The Premier League is a World League played in England but other than that I'd agree with you.

It's only a 'world league' in the sense that many foreign players and managers ply their trade within it, and it carries worldwide appeal.

Indeed that's really what I mean...something like 60% foreign players. Mainly foreign players, managed by mainly foreign managers, paid for by mainly foreign owners...now with an idea to play matches in far flung foreign lands to make money from foreign fans.
I did see the point you were making though.

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:00 am

And it isn't called the English Premier League anymore, It is officially called the Barclays Premier League, and FFS its 1 game and no english fans are loosing ANY games. There are millions of fans of the league across the world, it would be a huge opportunity cost NOT to play games overseas. The world is becoming ever more global. The NFL, which I thought was only popular in America has been very successful in its 2 international regular season matches. and I know that the NBA is also looking to continually globalize its brand. Imagine if the Serie A or La Liga beat the Prem to the punch? the big time teams from SPain and Italy would have even more money to buy players with making it harder to do well in Europe

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:38 am

The Premier League is an English league - FACT.

This is not America, and this is not the NFL, or NBA, or whatever else.

That 1 game is significant - 1 game can decide who wins the league, who qualifies for Europe, and who gets relegated, and I've no doubt that 1 game would lead to 2, then 3, then 4 - the commercial drive if successful would be immense.

They can do what they like in Spain or Italy, I don't really care.

How great a financial gain would clubs really gain from this one game stunt?

One stadium full of people and a few quid extra in TV money?

Brand awareness is well-established already.

Supporters pay a lot each year to support their clubs, and they've to be forced abroad to watch their team play in what is an English league?

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:00 am

The extra money would really show up when international bids for tv rights for the entire prem season come up. The interest in the league would expand and increase ratings, increasing the money that the premier league makes.

I bet you would care a lot more about what Spain and Italy did, if they were constantly beating English (including Liverpool) teams in European competitions because they had more money to bring in foreign talent

Yes 1 game is significant meaning the other 38 are just as significant, meaning a 2.5% impact, meaning you cannot BLAME not making Europe based on what you do in the 1 international match

No one if forcing them abroad, because they are STILL playing 19 home games, the extra international match has no impact on you ability to watch your team play in all the home games. And what about all the foreign fans who would be forced abroad for EVERY game that they wanted to see?

by **Rush Job** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:06 am

LFC2007 wrote:The Premier League is an English league - FACT.

This is not America, and this is not the NFL, or NBA, or whatever else.

That 1 game is significant - 1 game can decide who wins the league, who qualifies for Europe, and who gets relegated, and I've no doubt that 1 game would lead to 2, then 3, then 4 - the commercial drive if successful would be immense.

They can do what they like in Spain or Italy, I don't really care.

How great a financial gain would clubs really gain from this one game stunt?

One stadium full of people and a few quid extra in TV money?

Brand awareness is well-established already.

Supporters pay a lot each year to support their clubs, and they've to be forced abroad to watch their team play in what is an English league?

Yup, can you imagine EPL us against the bitters live from las vagas? get a grip. H&G must be rubbing their hands together, 'throw of lots of extra money' indeed. :no

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:15 am

fantastic idea met with the usual "you cant do this to us, we are liverpool" grumbles

the fact is that the PL in gets a huge revenue from televised rights in asia, added to the revenue from merchandise, then why shouldnt they have a chance to watch competitive games lives for a change, i think some of you just dont realise how big it is out here

as for forcing fans to go abroad to watch a game, i dont think anyone will be holding a gun to their heads mate, it will be their choice.

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:29 am

I don't follow peewee's stance on all issues, but I am pretty sure this is the first time we are on the same side of the fence

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:47 am

This is a terrible idea. Saint's spot on about the significance of moving away from the formula of playing every team home and away. LFC 2007's spot on about the hollowness of playing competitive matches away from the supporters/stadia etc. And several other people are spot on about the logistical nightmares associated with playing competitive matches at the four corners of the earth in January. Do more pre-season mini-tournaments with Premiership clubs in these places by all means, but leave the competitive matches alone. :no

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:53 am

JoeTerp wrote:I bet you would care a lot more about what Spain and Italy did, if they were constantly beating English (including Liverpool) teams in European competitions because they had more money to bring in foreign talent

Not in the slightest, if it meant preserving the character and distinctiveness of the league.

No one if forcing them abroad, because they are STILL playing 19 home games, the extra international match has no impact on you ability to watch your team play in all the home games. And what about all the foreign fans who would be forced abroad for EVERY game that they wanted to see?

Premier League teams play friendlies every year in these places, they can see the team they support then, or if they want to watch actual Premier League fixtures - they can watch on TV, or come over and watch us. If they can't make it, that's just tough.

It's an English League, the only motivation to play abroad is financial, it has nothing to do with letting supporters who live abroad get a chance to watch their teams play. It's entirely financial, there is no sentiment involved.

Yes 1 game is significant meaning the other 38 are just as significant, meaning a 2.5% impact, meaning you cannot BLAME not making Europe based on what you do in the 1 international match.

Meaning, those 3 points may have a significant outcome on our season, meaning, supporters who've forked out for every other game that season have to fly to another country to see their team play in what might be a crucial fixture.

If financially rewarding, it would no doubt lead to further games being played abroad. The 'product' being exported, is not the product that exists in this country, you can't export the essence of English football - the supporters, the stadia, the climate, the culture etc.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:01 am

Bad Bob wrote:This is a terrible idea. Saint's spot on about the significance of moving away from the formula of playing every team home and away. LFC 2007's spot on about the hollowness of playing competitive matches away from the supporters/stadia etc. And several other people are spot on about the logistical nightmares associated with playing competitive matches at the four corners of the earth in January. Do more pre-season mini-tournaments with Premiership clubs in these places by all means, but leave the competitive matches alone.

come on bob, you might actually get to go to a game

(friendly joke, before you decide to card me)

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:07 am

peewee wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:This is a terrible idea. Saint's spot on about the significance of moving away from the formula of playing every team home and away. LFC 2007's spot on about the hollowness of playing competitive matches away from the supporters/stadia etc. And several other people are spot on about the logistical nightmares associated with playing competitive matches at the four corners of the earth in January. Do more pre-season mini-tournaments with Premiership clubs in these places by all means, but leave the competitive matches alone.

come on bob, you might actually get to go to a game

(friendly joke, before you decide to card me)

Nah, I'd rather come to Anfield, thanks.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:32 am

Meaning, those 3 points may have a significant outcome on our season, meaning, supporters who've forked out for every other game that season have to fly to another country to see their team play in what might be a crucial fixture.

Knowing Liverpool, it will probably be the fixture where our title challenge finally ends.

It's not a crucial part of the season. It's January. No titles or relegation spots decided.

The domestic fans have got 38 games at their disposal to attend.

One extra match is not unreasonable. No one will force those fans to travel to Hong Kong.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:35 am

I refer you to my previous answers

.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:56 am

We all better get used to it. They're already talking of trialling it in the season 2010/11 within the January break

Liverpool FC Forum

Top clubs consider overseas games

Who is online