http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28770356 I'm not opposed to a game(s) being played overseas... I think it would help make the Premier League remain as the top league in the world. Help the domestic clubs- which in turn would boost our chances in Champions League, etc. 39 games though unbalance the league and make it unfair. A better idea would be- each team play one other team TWICE overseas as part of the regular 38 games. (that way everyone still plays everyone else twice and have same # of home and away games). To be FAIR- who should play each other overseas should be by position and known AHEAD of time the season before. For example... whoever finishes 1st plays the 20th team home/away overseas next season. 2nd plays 19th... etc,etc,etc. I don't know the overseas games are needed- but I think we have to continue to make the season fair- and a 39th game would upset this... certainly, games overseas will help the Premier League stay #1 though. If we don't do it first, Germany or Spain will.
"To be FAIR- who should play each other overseas should be by position and known AHEAD of time the season before. For example... whoever finishes 1st plays the 20th team home/away overseas next season. 2nd plays 19th... etc,etc,etc." what's the point in playing a championship team abroad i assume you mean in the order they come up from the championship, so 18th would be winners, 19th position team who came 2nd etc? its just a question of who gets desperate for the money first in all this, as its not really good for any other reason in my opinion.
could i translated his I think into ... I didn't ask so i can say this and get away with it... the f'n bartard... (and i like saying bartard.. it works for me so tough )
I think to be fair and REALLY fair... you take a cream of the crop match or two... have both teams sign up to betray thier fans and move those to dubai cos thats where thsi is all about.. .the rich arabs paying 50mil for city v chelsea for example out there. If both clubs sign up to do it and take the cash work a f'n way but the fans of that club should get more than one game off the price of season ticket and they should boycott as well.
That would only last one season though! Besides, we have Cardiff and Swansea for exotic overseas games for that matter.
Just no clear way to make it work fairly. As Milk says 39 is uneven. Do you have top playing bottom, 2nd playing 19th and so on? Do you have 1st play 2nd, 3rd vs 4th? Is it random picks? If so does the 39th game carry points? Would it be fair that two teams vying for the title or 4th end the season level on points (or within 3 points of each other) then have the 39th game as a decider? Unfair on the team that does it in the regular season only to have it taken away in a play off. Or if its random, how fair would it be if the team on top ends up playing the team in 3rd and the team in 2nd have to play an already relegated 20th. Football is already being taken away from its regular fans with match day costs. And the clubs are only in favour cause they try and do this sort of thing already, for the big clubs with world recognition its a great idea, who the **** in UAE or USA wants to watch Burnley v Aston Villa?
That's what pre season yours are for. Stupid idea, way too hard to make it truly fair as has already been said.
Scudamore is a twat and this idea is ****. All he wants is a slice of the pie that the clubs make during pre-season. IMO this kind of thing would be a precursor to an international league format which would be bad for the average fan.
They could just do it like the NFL where they have a random game during the season in the UK. Something like Everton v Newcastle mid season would be a good fixture in America. But tbh they would only want to see Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal.
Imagine the scenario, you have a cup game on wed, then fly to the US for a sat league game then back to europe for a CL game the following tues! I probably wouldn't even bother playing any first team players in either the cup game or the US game.
