7 on the sub bench and a possible 39th match abroad

[DigitalTron]

Two major developments were announced yesterday. Firstly, that the number of subs available on the bench moves from 5 to the international standard of 7 players per game. This will definitely happen and begins at the start of next season.

The other development is a proposal to have a 39th Premier League match for every team that will take place on a neutral site outside of England. Obviously, it would be a popular way to promote the Prem in places like Asia and the United States among others.

My take on the sub announcement is that it is good because it brings us in line with the majority of the world rule-wise. It offers coaches more flexibility to pick a team and more cushion to include young players in the match day squad. Then if the game is lopsided, you will likely see the young players playing significantly more minutes per season.

I also support the 39th game, which would likely take place in January when there are no CL, UEFA, or international matches with which to contend. I think they way to keep the Premier League as one of the 2 best leagues in the world is to keep the money rolling in. Let's face it, most of the world is without a gargantuan league to follow, and while they may follow their local league, they often follow the top leagues like the Prem, La Liga, Serie A or the Bundesliga as well. This is a great opportunity to grow those fans and increase the revenues that Prem clubs get. And most importantly, the fact that it's a competitive match means the clubs will play their starters, thus the fans will come in large amounts.

What do you think? Discuss.

-Digital

[Colm]

Playing a premiership match abroad is a horrible idea, just more money grabing from the Premier League and FA, theres nothing wrong with playing pre season friendlies/tournements abroad but to play an official premiership match abroad is unfair on the fans, officail matches should and only should be played at home. Just think if it was in January with a piled up fixture list?

as for 7 subs, I support that Idea.

[alexspepa]

chance to see Spurs play a meaningful game in the States? sorry, I have to be selfish and say YESSSSSS! Besides, it's not like they are taking a game away from their home supporters.

like the increase to 7 subs also.

[Colm]

It'll be taking the game away from the domestic league, since it's called the English Premier league all games should be played in England. If they starting taking the league away from England then it'll be a sad day for football here, I know for a fact that nearly everyone from England would totally against this, reading 606 and other forums, even a lot of overseas fans are against it too.

[alexspepa]

I respect your opinion, but I do disagree. I also realize we are looking at it from two competely different perspectives.
The would be adding a game you do not already have, although I do understand that opens the door for more fixtures to be moved in the future.
Still - can you imagine - Spurs v Arsenal in the states? It would sell out in 1 day.

[mattie g]

I'm in support of the seven players on the bench. Pretty simple, really.

As for the games overseas, I'm of two minds.

Firstly, from a selfish point of view, it'd be nice to be able to see Spurs live if they were to play somewhere relatively near me. That means DC, Baltimore, Philly, or New York. But the realistic chance of that happening is pretty low, since these games will be played in January, and there’s no guarantee the weather would hold out at that time. Same thing goes for Chicago or any other Midwestern city. This would be primarily a warm-weather location for any games here in the US: LA, Houston, Miami, Dallas (maybe). So even my selfish outlook is diminished somewhat by that aspect of it.

Overall, however, I think it’s a bad idea to have an extra game, no matter where it’s played. This is an EXTRA game – not one taking the place of another on the schedule – and they’re going to count towards the point total for the season. I’d hate to be a team (Team A) in the relegation zone who has to play one of the top teams, while another relegation-threatened team (Team B) plays another team from the lower half of the table. Let’s say that Team A loses that extra game and Team B wins; then, at the end of the season, Team A is relgated, having come in 18th spot, while Team B stays up, having earned one extra point and ending in 17th in the table. Abviously, that exra game played a major role in the relgation of one team over another. The same can be said for teams battling for European spots or the championship of the Premier League.

I just don’t like the idea of arbitrarily adding an extra game. If a champion, European spots, and relegation are to be determined by the total points earned over the course of a season, the only way to make that truly fair is to make it so that each team plays the other an equal number of times. Changing that changes the dynamic of a league table and might give one team an advantage over another, or vice versa.

Besides all of that, adding another game into an already crowded fixture list only invites more controversy, especially when there are people calling for some sort of a break in the middle of the season.

[alexspepa]

Overall, however, I think it’s a bad idea to have an extra game, no matter where it’s played. This is an EXTRA game – not one taking the place of another on the schedule – and they’re going to count towards the point total for the season. I’d hate to be a team (Team A) in the relegation zone who has to play one of the top teams, while another relegation-threatened team (Team B) plays another team from the lower half of the table. Let’s say that Team A loses that extra game and Team B wins; then, at the end of the season, Team A is relgated, having come in 18th spot, while Team B stays up, having earned one extra point and ending in 17th in the table. Abviously, that exra game played a major role in the relgation of one team over another. The same can be said for teams battling for European spots or the championship of the Premier League.

I just don’t like the idea of arbitrarily adding an extra game. If a champion, European spots, and relegation are to be determined by the total points earned over the course of a season, the only way to make that truly fair is to make it so that each team plays the other an equal number of times. Changing that changes the dynamic of a league table and might give one team an advantage over another, or vice versa.

Besides all of that, adding another game into an already crowded fixture list only invites more controversy, especially when there are people calling for some sort of a break in the middle of the season.

Now that is something I had not thought of, and you are absolutely correct.

So while I will certainly try to take advantage of seeing the games if they do come to the states, I may have to change my vote and say no. So someone please inform the EPL that I said no.

[HomeatHighbury]

I know for a fact that nearly everyone from England would totally against this, reading 606 and other forums, even a lot of overseas fans are against it too.
That seems to be the feeling, and I've got to agree. What could be better than a nice Northwest trip away midweek followed by a good old flight to LA or some such nonsense. Greed. Pure greed.

I respect your opinion, but I do disagree. I also realize we are looking at it from two competely different perspectives.
The would be adding a game you do not already have, although I do understand that opens the door for more fixtures to be moved in the future.
Still - can you imagine - Spurs v Arsenal in the states? It would sell out in 1 day.

But would you really want to move a NLD away from...North London?

[pookspur]

horrible, wretched idea. for more reasons than i'm inclined to go into.


you want to watch spurs play a meaningful match? go to england.

you want to be able to see your favorite team without doing so? support your local club.

[cdmphy]

This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. And the veracity of the attacks after they leaked the idea should kill the idea.

I will say this much about the seven man bench: it will really benefit teams who have good tacticians as managers. So definitely a good move.

[pookspur]

...I will say this much about the seven man bench: it will really benefit teams who have good tacticians as managers. So definitely a good move.

not to be argumentative, as the point it true; but it will also be of greater benefit to clubs with greater depth. not bad for us, i'd say, but another example of further advantage to the wealthier clubs. i'm not bent out of shape about it, but that is a meaningful downside, to my mind.

[alexspepa]

POOK...unfortunately, my local club, the Charlotte Eagles, use their club to promote an Evangelical Christian lifestyle. I do not like going to a match and getting preached to.

[pookspur]

POOK...unfortunately, my local club, the Charlotte Eagles, use their club to promote an Evangelical Christian lifestyle. I do not like going to a match and getting preached to.

well, that leaves you with another option, then, doesn't it?

buy a ticket. go to the lane.

[electrickeeper]

well, that leaves you with another option, then, doesn't it?

buy a ticket. go to the lane.

Or buy a ticket, and go to Citeh and the Emirates...:o

[Hauler]

Well I remember last year I was talking about having 7 subs on the bench to Digi and people thought that it was going to happen very soon. I'm very happy to see that that is going to be taking place cause now you can put out some other players maybe some younger guys if the game is a bit of a blowout.

About the extra game I think this is all coming about cause of what the NFL did and how the Giants and Dolphins went to England to play a real game at Wembley. Maybe the reason they think its a good idea is cause the Giants went to England to play the game and they won the Super Bowl so maybe they (The FA) feel that it would be ok to do the same cause it might not hinder results. I think that it is a great idea to see some teams that many people would not see otherwise. Lets be fair not everyone can take a trip to England to see a game.

[alexspepa]

well, that leaves you with another option, then, doesn't it?

buy a ticket. go to the lane.


yep...gonna go in 2009.

but I will also go if they show up here in the states.

[Phillyspur]

I don't see a good solution, because a random extra game has all the problems Mattie described. You can't play one of the regular 38 abroad without a team giving up home advantage and the home supporters complaining, and I can't see that happening.

Still it would be great to see Spurs locally, however unlikely that may be, especially for those that can't afford to get over to the Lane. Preseason friendlies do a pretty good job for that. They must be due in the States again soon... *fingers crossed*

[soccernutter]

7 subs - I'm all for it.

Match outside of England. Will it count in the standings? What if Villa has to play Man U 3 times and Arsenal get to play Derby 3 times. Unfair and possibly championship/Europe deciding.

But I'm also against this because of the wear and tear on the players.

And other reasons.

[pookspur]

... Lets be fair not everyone can take a trip to England to see a game.

fair?

it's tottenham hotspur football club. there's nothing even remotely unfair about them playing their matches in tottenham.

[DigitalTron]

Playing a premiership match abroad is a horrible idea, just more money grabing from the Premier League and FA, theres nothing wrong with playing pre season friendlies/tournements abroad but to play an official premiership match abroad is unfair on the fans, officail matches should and only should be played at home. Just think if it was in January with a piled up fixture list?

But Colm, you do realise that everything you just said could be just as easily used to support eliminating the Champions League, right? How is this really any different, except that the entire Premier League benefits instead of the top 4 teams with a stranglehold on those positions by virtue of their extra revenue coming directly and inderectly from their Champions League games ... half of which are played outside of England?

The difference is that the Champions League benefits the top clubs in all of europe, and far more than 20 of them, whereas this money grab would promote the 20 clubs in the Premiership, helping to level the playing field a bit within the Premiership and helping to put/keep the Premiership clubs ahead of their equivalents in other leagues like La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga. Seriously, the reason the Premiership is so good is in large part because the teams are so rich. The best players come for the money, then the next wave will come for equal money because the best players are there. This is just another vehicle to keep that happening.

Remember, when Serie A was the richest league in the world (pre-financial implosion by a lot of their clubs), it was routinely considered the best in the world. There is nothing keeping the Premiership ahead of the Bundesliga for example except money. The Bundesliga clubs are quite poor compared to the Premiership clubs, despite excellent attendance. If Real Madrid and Barcelona both did a Leeds United financial nosedive out of La Liga, the entire league would suffer greatly. Heck, just losing Juventus for a season was devestating to the coffers of Serie A because the value of their television rights temporarily went down.

Like it or not, money makes the league, regardless of whether it's a well supported league or a sparsely supported league.

Personally, I'm happy to see the Premiership doing this first, because I anticipate a dilution of the domestic leagues entirely in favor of a super-league to resurface again in the near future. So, something that makes the Premier League stronger financially is a good thing IMHO. Like it or not, the Premier League makes more money OUTSIDE of England than it does INSIDE of England, and who wouldn't want to grow that? If the Premier League were limited to revenues only from within England, it would probably be on par with the Dutch Eredivisie right about now ... and that would be most unfortunate.

-Digital