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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

yep...gonna go in 2009.

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

 

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*

 

In the champions league, you play home and away, in this case the premier league are sudgesting both teams would be playing on a neutral ground which is totally wrong for a league match, clubs going to play premiership matches abroad is turning it's back on it's hardcore fanfase and match day goers and is totally wrong, as Pook said it's Tottenham Hotspur football club and if you want to see them play come to London.
​

 

What about a CC/FA Cup/UEFA Cup/CL final? This is always on neutral ground---and in the case of UC/CL, usually out of the country of both teams playing. I'm pretty sure the fans don't cry about it then, so why is a regular season match such a major issue? The only thing that I can think of to explain this is that England is small enough that you can have a core group of supporters that can easily travel to all domestic away games. That culture has been there for generations. The US is so large that fans of the various sports teams don't have that same expectation/attachment, hence some of them saying "what's the big deal?" That, and we're obviously lazy here and just expect everything to come to us.

I'm against this proposal in the end, but the neutral ground element is far from the reason why. Unfortunately, as bad an idea it is, I'm sure they'll end up doing it anyway given how much money is at stake.

 

I gotta say I'm surprised by this. Going to the Lane in December was a pilgrimage and it felt like it. There was nothing about the game that wasn't exciting and new and slightly mysterious. Amazing feeling. When you go there and see the Lane, see the fans, hear the songs, drink at the pubs, THAT'S when you're seeing the club and everything that makes it special and worthy of supporting. You can't recreate that feeling in Dubai or Miami nor should you be able to. I would never go to a Spurs "league game" at Reliant or the Rose Bowl or some place. It's a crap farce, designed to fool people with disposable income who don't know better or don't care.

 

English teams play abroad all the time. I don't know what the big deal is. I, myself saw Spurs play in DC a few years back. Yes, it was during pre-season, but Man Utd played a friendly in Bahrain (or wherever) a few weeks ago, and the world didn't explode.

To me, the main problem with this scheme is the fairness issue. As I understand the current proposal, one lucky team would get to play Derby 3 times, while another would have to play Chelsea 3 times. Now there are ways to make this "fairer," e.g. making the game abroad a "joker" of sorts - to be used at the end of the season to replace another game, only if the team wants - but it would still create lopsided results. If they added another team to the league, however, or just played one of the regular season games abroad. That would be better.

A few hours on a plane (in first class) to a warmer climate to pay a game in Jan isn't the end of the world. Might even do the players some good. Now I can see why people, especially the English (I can talk about them because I'm English) may not warm to this idea. But then again they didn't warm to the idea of European cups very quickly either. Foreign players and coaches are still surprisingly sore subjects in some circles too. Didn't stop any of that happening. Essentially, if there's money in it, then you can bet it'll happen someday.

Might this be the beginning of a global league (as opposed to national leagues). Maybe. So what? The players are from everywhere, the fans are from everywhere, it was only a matter of time before the games began to be played everywhere as well. Just another facet of globalization, people. Might less and less games be played at the Lane? Maybe. But as more and more fans (percentage-wise) live abroad, the team is bound to come to them.

To be (slightly) facetious by modifying something that's been said in this thread already, if you want to support a team that plays 100% of its games in England, then there's a always a local team like QPR or Leyton Orient, maybe...