Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 315
|
|
I think the idea has some merit. Many fans abroad would be excited with the possibility of seeing some of the best teams in the world playing near them. Isn't that a good thing on its own? And giving the match an official status, with league points to play for, is the ultimate respect you can pay the foreign audience: a guarantee that both teams will try their all and won't fiddle with the substitutions.
But I suppose that games not involving one of the Big 4 would be very hard to sell abroad, so the project of a full 39th matchday being played all over the world would be hard to pull off. Some games would be almost unsellable other than as the first half of a double bill. Which might not be a bad idea.
|
druryfire
member
Reged: 20/03/2007
Posts: 351
|
|
For me NO, basically if done, it would kill off the domestic game in some Asian countries and once England gets the go ahead, then everyone else will follow suit.
If they want to include a wider audience to live Premier games, then why not fly the local fans to England, pay the fanfare and free entry?
But, looking at friendlies which are played abroad, they are welcome, but generally feature a home based team, on this occasion it won't happen, so who benefits, certainly not the local players.
But then i think, didn't the Italian League play the Super Cup in Libya one year? and endless countries now play games in different countries, e.g France and Emirates Stadium, Uk, so there must be a loop hole somewhere?
|
Felipe_Teixeira
member
Reged: 02/12/2007
Posts: 3
|
|
The inception of the Premier League has led to higher calibre players coming to England and raised the standard of the game in this country meaning English clubs are more competitive in foreign competitions, however it has also led to a widening gulf between the paying supporter and his/her club.
The paying supporter is the key stakeholder of a football club and without the passion and atmosphere generated by English fans the "product" (as it is doubtless regarded by the Premier League money men) would not be so appealing to foreign fans. The Premier League totally disregard fans when changing kick off dates and times for TV purposes and this new plan is the final kick in the teeth for the paying punter who is being ostracised in favour of foreign-based fans with no connection to English clubs and whose sole act of support is buying replica shirts and watching games on television.
On a positive note if the universal adverse reaction to the idea unites fans, perhaps we can reclaim our game from the men in suits and ensure that we are never again treated with such disregard.
|
genegenie
member
Reged: 10/07/2007
Posts: 27
|
|
Having lived and travelled around extensively around Asia, I have first-hand experience of how much the English Premier League means to football fans out there. Despite late-night kick-offs, press and TV coverage is huge, people just want to talk about the likes of Beckham and Lampard and 'replica' kits sell like hot-cakes. The average fan out there would love to watch real English matches in the flesh.
Yet, what about the local leagues? What about the Hong Kong League, that has been dying on its knees in terms of players and coverage now it is up against the saturation coverage of the English game. The local competitions are dying already, so while the AFC like to say they don't want Scudamore and his shop to set up on their turf, one feels they are already fighting a losing battle.
|
druryfire
member
Reged: 20/03/2007
Posts: 351
|
|
Geniegenie, i feel the stronger leagues in Japan, Korea, Australia could sustain the attack of the Premier League, but i feel the likes of Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore and a whole load more, have already lost the battle for fans, if they ever really had any anyway, but if this did happen, then the coffin would firmly be struck against them.
The Premier League, if they wish to really be admitted have to help the local FA's for wherever they want to go, before they can really stamp there ground in that country. Even such things as money for the governments to help transport links, which is a simple thing that stops parts of Asia having leagues open to all towns / cities, as some leagues never take off due to being City leagues only.
There's also another problem in which Premier League teams go where? Saudi have already stated, they can come, but as long as its the big four, otherwise don't bother.
To me and you, a six pointer relegation decider as early as January featuring a Fulham and a Birmingham might sound good, but to Asia? they just want to see the big four, and we would only have four host cities of this at least, having six cities feeling rather upset.
Still a non starter for myself, but if the Premier League want to show case their league to everyone, why not brign the few who attend games in Asia to the UK? But then this doens't make money does it?
|
brod104
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 38
Loc: Sheffield, England
|
|
There are so many reasons why this should never go ahead, in my opinion. In no particular order, my thoughts are:
1) It would alienate still further the UK-based fans who are being prevented from attending matches here thanks to increasing ticket prices. I myself can only start thinking of buying tickets for matches to see my favourite team, including inter-city travel. How on earth are fans going to be able to afford to watch the extra game abroad.
1a) Season ticket holders: will this game be included?
2) It's not going to be fair on the clubs themselves. It adds to fixture congestion, which is a problem already. And once they teams arrive on the other side of the world, jet-lagged, how unfair is it going to be on the relegation battlers who find themselves up against title chasers. This could only ever work if the teams were forced to play teams around them, i.e. teams gunning for Europe, teams scrapping for survival and those with nothing to play for.
3) The crowds would only flock to see the traditional Big Four, and possibly Spurs. People in the US, Asia, etc, aren't going to want to pay £30 or so to see Bolton and Reading, for example, kick each other to a 0-0. (No disrespect to Bolton and Reading intended.)
4) This plan would be to the detriment of the local leagues. Surely it would be more important to encourage the development of MLS, the Australian A-League and the other potentially affected league, rather than wallow in with the Premier League heavyweights.
Basically, this just smacks of the Premier League thinking up new ways to bring in as much cash as they can, instead of thinking of the fans.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 315
|
|
Some thoughts on some answers:
"it would kill off the domestic game in some Asian countries"
How is just ONE game in a whole year, which might not even be played in your city, which you might not even see or attend, going to kill off the domestic game in whole countries? Do the gridiron games in London kill any prospects of the British game that aren't already there, of the NBA coverage makes it harder for British basketball players? Wouldn't it be the opposite, that an Indian, Japanese, North American 10-year-old, inspired by that game he once saw in person decides to take up football rather than cricket, baseball or basketball? Things like these happen all the time, and future players are fond of these memories.
"why not fly the local fans to England, pay the fanfare and free entry?"
I have seen travel packages including tickets for games. Or course, they're not cheap, but it does happen.
"who benefits, certainly not the local players."
It seems to me that passing up the chance to see those games at your doorstep would be like passing up the chance to see your favourite music band or film shooting if you're a musician or actor and they came near you. And as I said before, it's just once a year. I really don't see the problem for the local players. Could we have a survery of some, anyway, World Soccer?
"the paying punter who is being ostracised in favour of foreign-based fans with no connection to English clubs and whose sole act of support is buying replica shirts and watching games on television."
I think this is a very unfair view of foreign fans. The very fact that they go out of their way to watch English football, often at bad times for them, buy English team shirts and even attend games featuring them when they can is a quite clear show of their commitment. They do deserve the chance to watch them live over there.
"Despite late-night kick-offs, press and TV coverage is huge, people just want to talk about the likes of Beckham and Lampard and 'replica' kits sell like hot-cakes. The average fan out there would love to watch real English matches in the flesh."
Hear, hear.
"Yet, what about the local leagues? What about the Hong Kong League, that has been dying on its knees in terms of players and coverage now it is up against the saturation coverage of the English game. The local competitions are dying already."
I'm not sure how many of those dying leagues were flourishing before European football was available on TVs around the world. But coverage just can't be stopped legally. It would be like restricting someone to only watching films and listening to music from his own country.
"It would alienate still further the UK-based fans who are being prevented from attending matches here thanks to increasing ticket prices. How on earth are fans going to be able to afford to watch the extra game abroad."
You still get your regular 38 games, exactly like before. This would go untouched, so there shouldn't be any complaints there. And as for the 39th game, well, teams are already playing friendlies abroad which supporters can't attend. And European games, and even Club World Cup games on occasion. I suppose there is no way around this: if someone can't attend because of time or money constraints, they'll have to miss that particular game.
One important thing, to me, is the scheduling of that game. I think it would be unfair to play it at the end of the season. At the beginning, when there are no hopeless Derby, no free-falling Reading, no shambolic Newcastle, no nothing-to-play-for teams, would be best.
"Basically, this just smacks of the Premier League thinking up new ways to bring in as much cash as they can, instead of thinking of the fans."
Yes, they want more money, (to make their teams better adding some of the best players in the world for you to see close at hand, rather than having to fly to Brazil, Argentina or the Ivory Coast to see them) and they are also thinking about the fans. It's the players who might not be too happy about this. Once they have big contracts, that is.
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
The first thing that this whole argument brings to mind is:
How incompetent are the English footballing authorities - or in this particular case the Premier League and their chief executive Richard Scudamore?
In January - to no public fanfare, indeed to almost no reaction at all from anyone - it was announced that two Russian teams wanted to play their opening league game of the 2008 season at Stamford Bridge.
Had this gone ahead with barely a murmur from FIFA or UEFA -a scenario that I consider to have been quite possible - then the precedent would already have been set & the Premier League would have had a decent argument (whatever the faults of their overall plan) for saying: "well you let the Russians come to England so what have you got against us going overseas".
By going public so early Scudamore has given FIFA the opportunity to double-bolt the stable door while the horse is still asleep.
As for the plan itself. Well with one important exception I can see the argument of both sides. Even if the motives of the Premier League moneymen is purely - well - money: the idea of giving some of the many millions of fans around the world the chance to see competitive Premier League football in the flesh has it's merits. So - for that matter - does the argument that this might mean some loyal home-based fans missing out on seeing their team play competitively.
Where I differ from a lot of posters here though is in not being sure that it's now possible - or fair - to assume that the arguments of the "local fans" should outweigh that of the overseas fans. In a historic & purely sporting context maybe it is. But in terms of business - & whether us fans like it or not modern football is also a business now - wouldn't that be the same as any business expanding overseas, expecting customers to spend money on their "product" but then saying: "sorry - but you're not as important to us as our home-based customers".
So - purely on the question of yes or no to overseas games -I can see both sides. But the idea of distorting the league with a 39th game is truly atrocious and to me makes the whole of the current plan untenable.
It would surely be far more feasible for those clubs with major fan bases overseas to "relocate" one of their home games each season to somewhere they have, or hope to create, a major fanbase. Presumably a Manchester United v Wigan anywhere in Asia would be like a home game for United anyway & so should be treated as such.
Maybe these games should have to be sold as a "double header" or even a "triple header" with one or two local league games before "the main event". This would mean that the Premier League was actually sharing exposure with the local leagues - rather than usurping them. Indeed it might well be getting some fans to the stadiums to watch local teams that wouldn't otherwise go. There should be some system for sharing the revenues generated through TV, sponsorship & stadium attendance - both with the local teams participating on the day & with the local leagues overall.
Handled right the plan might not be as terrible as many people think. Unfortunately for now it's being handled appallingly.
|
genegenie
member
Reged: 10/07/2007
Posts: 27
|
|
Rogorn, the American Football fixtures (the pre-season matches of the 80's and 90's, as well as the recent annual regular season match) did little to boost the marketability of the 'local' game, hence the British American Football league has never really taken off. This time around, the NFL seem to be trying hard to sustain and grow interest in the local game as well as their game, but fans are not interested in fifth-rate ball. They want the real deal. This is exactly how countries such as Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, etc find matters with their local (lack of) fans. So one game every so often does have a bearing. Given the choice, my friends in Hong Kong would rather watch highlights of a Premier League match than a local HK league game. And that is how it is across most (if not all) of the continent.
As for the club fans of the English teams being alienated - well sorry. They already are. We are moving more towards an American model of sporting franchises, where the corporate and TV bucks matter more than the average fan. There will always be someone who can afford silly prices for a match ticket, even if Joe Schmoe from down the road, who has been a season ticket holder for 20 years, cannot afford it.
|
richards
member
Reged: 12/06/2006
Posts: 88
|
|
Rogorn, I suspect you're playing devil's advocate here, but if not then what about the problem of the 39th game? How can the integrity of the league be maintained when some clubs play each other three times rather than twice? Regardless of the rights and wrongs of playing overseas, I can see no way in which the proposed additional fixture can be incorporated into the schedule without compromising its integrity.
I have little sympathy for the foreign fans of the Premier League. You claim they 'deserve' to watch games live, but the fact that they spend their time and money watching games on TV and buying replica shirts is neither here nor there. They 'deserve' to watch Premier League football about as much as I 'deserve' to watch the New York Yankees play at Lords. It would be nice for me if that happened, but I don't regard it as a right purely because I'm quite partial to a game of baseball.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 315
|
|
Quote:
Rogorn, I suspect you're playing devil's advocate here, but if not then what about the problem of the 39th game? How can the integrity of the league be maintained when some clubs play each other three times rather than twice? Regardless of the rights and wrongs of playing overseas, I can see no way in which the proposed additional fixture can be incorporated into the schedule without compromising its integrity.
I have little sympathy for the foreign fans of the Premier League. You claim they 'deserve' to watch games live, but the fact that they spend their time and money watching games on TV and buying replica shirts is neither here nor there. They 'deserve' to watch Premier League football about as much as I 'deserve' to watch the New York Yankees play at Lords. It would be nice for me if that happened, but I don't regard it as a right purely because I'm quite partial to a game of baseball.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm neither for nor against this proposal, until I hear and know more, at least. What I do think, however, is that most of the reasons against that I have read have sounded very unconvincing to me. And it's a legitimate position to take.
If everyone agrees to the 39th game, everyone is on an equal footing. Same as when everyone agrees to enter the FA Cup (you never know how hard your path is going to be), or when the rules about foreign players, money from TVs, number of substitutions or back pass laws change. They are the same for everyone, and everyone would know it from the outset. Besides, as I said, if that extra game is played very soon in the season, I don't think it can be claimed to have had an enormous influence on the final results, because there is plenty of time to recover.
Sure, it's not the same that your 39th game is against Arsenal or against Derby, and three points more or less might mean a big difference for many clubs. That's why I'd rather not take a 39th game abroad, but one of the other 38. I suspect that the 39th thing comes from being able to tell fans: 'look, you're still going to have your regular 38 games, so no-one is taking anything from your season ticket. This is an extra on the side.' These are the things I mean when I say the proposal is half-cooked and can be tweaked. If it's going to be done, there shouldn't be a problem with taking one of the regular 38 games out abroad rather than come up with an awkward compromise like 'game 39'.
About 'deserving' a game abroad, I don't mean it in a God-given or judge-mandated way, as if we were discussing having clean water, street security or good government. I mean it in the same way that for example London 'deserves' to be able to watch Egyptian or Chinese art, or the finest theatre or opera companies, or that Japanese fans of a given band 'deserve' to have them tour their country if they're popular there. They do their thing, and then they go back, and everyone has been a winner. Sure, it's a concept that has never been applied to league football, but one game is not moving the whole thing abroad, is it?
So, back to my stance on the topic, right now, like Arsène Wenger's, it is 'keep talking, let me hear more'.
---
By the way, does no-one else find it quite scandalous that Sepp Blatter can say that England can forget about the 2018 World Cup if this proposal goes ahead? What does one thing have to do with the other? Who does he think he is to say that?
|
richards
member
Reged: 12/06/2006
Posts: 88
|
|
The proposed date for the 39th game is January - by which point we'd have a pretty good idea who was in danger of going down.
Re: Blatter, I suppose he is warning the FA that their World Cup bid will not find alienate potential support among delegates who fear that English football is embarking upon a course of colonialism. It was a friendly(ish) warning about what might happen, and not a threat about what he would be able to do. However, realistically, we all know that he carries enough personal influence within FIFA to scupper a bid should he wish to do so.
|
druryfire
member
Reged: 20/03/2007
Posts: 351
|
|
Has any thought out just what playing football in Asia means?
For example, currently fans flock in hundreds, if not thousands to
the local bar or fan zone area to watch their team, Arsenal, Man utd, etc.
What happens when for instance when, Bangkok, Jakarta, Singapore for example whom all
share the same time zone, all want to play their match at 3pm or 8pm local time?? and the Indonesian
Supporters club of Arsenal for example decide they don't want to watch the Premier League game between
Middlesbrough and Newcastle because they have no interest and rather stay in the bar to watch the Arsenal
game on TV being played in Singapore rather than go to the 90,000 seater stadium??
Also, are the Premier League going to do any home work and put Prtemier League teams into countries that they already have a fan base
or put them in a country where they have no fan base? If the second option, then i can't see the games being sold out
|
MyBoyHarry
member
Reged: 21/02/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
I think that the proposal is no more than a form of (football) colonialism and what gets me is that as a product the Premier League is actually pretty poor. Far from being the best league in the world the "greed is good league" is the best MARKETED league in the world.
At a time when england cant even qualify for the Euros there is something of an irony or arrogance about those that run what is no more than a money making scheme for the 20 (or 4) member club in their assessment of the quality of what is a "product".
Its also salient to note that if my figures are correct English clubs have won just 2 of the last 23 European Cups/Champions Leagues and just 2 of the last 23 UEFA Cups, hardly a league comprising the best teams on the continent, never mind the world.
What this probably does raise though is the question of whether a World League should be talked about and sanctioned by say FIFA. There may be merit in this but it would have to be an open competition and the likes of Manchester United couldnt be allowed to play in both a World League and the Premier League; its one or the other.
Personally I have no strong affection for the so called Big 4 in the PL and if they left to play in some far off league by themselves I'd shed no tears whatsoever. I doubt that many would now.
The Premier League and some of its greedy clubs are in serious dangers of making themselves the pariahs of world football, never mind the most popular.
For once its also nice to see Sepp Blatter making a correct call. Lets hope he keeps this stance along with Platini.
Anyway any right minded fan should in my opinion say an unequivocal no to the 39th game and if it takes the threat of taking away the 2018 World Cup from England (its obviously a front runner) then so be it. Whatever it takes to stop this ridiculous idea should be seriously promoted.
I hope it never happens and it wouldnt be a bad thing for football in England to suffer some sort of implosion to bring it back down to earth.
|
MyBoyHarry
member
Reged: 21/02/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
The proposed date for the 39th game is January - by which point we'd have a pretty good idea who was in danger of going down.
Re: Blatter, I suppose he is warning the FA that their World Cup bid will not find alienate potential support among delegates who fear that English football is embarking upon a course of colonialism. It was a friendly(ish) warning about what might happen, and not a threat about what he would be able to do. However, realistically, we all know that he carries enough personal influence within FIFA to scupper a bid should he wish to do so.
I never read your post before I replied but the word "colonialism" is in my opinion right. Its no more than an attempt to be all pervasive in the world of football and I guess if we cant rule the world politically or economically we might as well try and take over the world sportingly.
We obviously have the marketing people at the PL capable of pulling the wool over many people's eyes.
Personally I couldnt give a monkeys if the majority of Arsenal's fans are abroad - i know that my club Sunderland's arent - and if someone wants to watch English football live they come to us not the other way around.
English clubs play their league matches in England not Kuala Lumpur or Doha. The blatant greed of the proposal is to be honest sickening.
We should be respecting national boundaries and associations not trying to ride roughshod over them and undermining fledgling leagues such as that in say Australia. As we have seen Asia doesnt want the matches - which is manna from Heaven.
Say no to the 39th game.
|
MyBoyHarry
member
Reged: 21/02/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
Some thoughts on some answers:
"it would kill off the domestic game in some Asian countries"
How is just ONE game in a whole year, which might not even be played in your city, which you might not even see or attend, going to kill off the domestic game in whole countries? Do the gridiron games in London kill any prospects of the British game that aren't already there, of the NBA coverage makes it harder for British basketball players? Wouldn't it be the opposite, that an Indian, Japanese, North American 10-year-old, inspired by that game he once saw in person decides to take up football rather than cricket, baseball or basketball? Things like these happen all the time, and future players are fond of these memories.
"why not fly the local fans to England, pay the fanfare and free entry?"
I have seen travel packages including tickets for games. Or course, they're not cheap, but it does happen.
"who benefits, certainly not the local players."
It seems to me that passing up the chance to see those games at your doorstep would be like passing up the chance to see your favourite music band or film shooting if you're a musician or actor and they came near you. And as I said before, it's just once a year. I really don't see the problem for the local players. Could we have a survery of some, anyway, World Soccer?
"the paying punter who is being ostracised in favour of foreign-based fans with no connection to English clubs and whose sole act of support is buying replica shirts and watching games on television."
I think this is a very unfair view of foreign fans. The very fact that they go out of their way to watch English football, often at bad times for them, buy English team shirts and even attend games featuring them when they can is a quite clear show of their commitment. They do deserve the chance to watch them live over there.
"Despite late-night kick-offs, press and TV coverage is huge, people just want to talk about the likes of Beckham and Lampard and 'replica' kits sell like hot-cakes. The average fan out there would love to watch real English matches in the flesh."
Hear, hear.
"Yet, what about the local leagues? What about the Hong Kong League, that has been dying on its knees in terms of players and coverage now it is up against the saturation coverage of the English game. The local competitions are dying already."
I'm not sure how many of those dying leagues were flourishing before European football was available on TVs around the world. But coverage just can't be stopped legally. It would be like restricting someone to only watching films and listening to music from his own country.
"It would alienate still further the UK-based fans who are being prevented from attending matches here thanks to increasing ticket prices. How on earth are fans going to be able to afford to watch the extra game abroad."
You still get your regular 38 games, exactly like before. This would go untouched, so there shouldn't be any complaints there. And as for the 39th game, well, teams are already playing friendlies abroad which supporters can't attend. And European games, and even Club World Cup games on occasion. I suppose there is no way around this: if someone can't attend because of time or money constraints, they'll have to miss that particular game.
One important thing, to me, is the scheduling of that game. I think it would be unfair to play it at the end of the season. At the beginning, when there are no hopeless Derby, no free-falling Reading, no shambolic Newcastle, no nothing-to-play-for teams, would be best.
"Basically, this just smacks of the Premier League thinking up new ways to bring in as much cash as they can, instead of thinking of the fans."
Yes, they want more money, (to make their teams better adding some of the best players in the world for you to see close at hand, rather than having to fly to Brazil, Argentina or the Ivory Coast to see them) and they are also thinking about the fans. It's the players who might not be too happy about this. Once they have big contracts, that is.
foreign fans deserve nothing from English football. They make a choice of who they support based on the fact that if they support an English team they may never see them play live, or if they do get the chance its in a greedy money spinning friendly.
Lets rid ourselves of this "we owe those fans outside of england" something idea. We owe them nothing.
why, for example, dont they support their own fledgling teams. That would be more beneficial to their domestic football and to be honest create a stronger international base.
If I want to watch Real Madrid play live for league points i go to spain. Thats the principle of football that has held good for 130 years.
We dont need our game being turned into a circus.
|
MyBoyHarry
member
Reged: 21/02/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
For me NO, basically if done, it would kill off the domestic game in some Asian countries and once England gets the go ahead, then everyone else will follow suit.
If they want to include a wider audience to live Premier games, then why not fly the local fans to England, pay the fanfare and free entry?
But, looking at friendlies which are played abroad, they are welcome, but generally feature a home based team, on this occasion it won't happen, so who benefits, certainly not the local players.
But then i think, didn't the Italian League play the Super Cup in Libya one year? and endless countries now play games in different countries, e.g France and Emirates Stadium, Uk, so there must be a loop hole somewhere?
Exactly. Its the thin end of the wedge. Once we do it everyone will be at it and where does this leave the structures of world football?
Lets not kid ourselves here the non English owners of our football clubs dont give 2 hoots about footballing tradition or history and at a time when they are all in massive debt this is no more than sheer greed.
Once you have one game, there will be calls for 2 and then 5 and then 10 and then chaos. We no longer will know who the clubs belong too.
Rather than having sunderland AFC, why not have The shanghai Mackems. Lets go further, if the foreigners want us to play in black and white stripes then hey why not...as long as they pay for the privilege eh? 
Maybe if the foreigners throw enough money at us we will also do circus tricks?
|
stephen_woodside
member
Reged: 02/05/2007
Posts: 1880
Loc: Huyton, Merseyside
|
|
Firstly welcome to the forum MyBoyHarry mate. Secondly, wow, what an introduction, that i agree with in many ways. I will make more of a full response in due course but for the time being, i understand your strong views on this matter. I would even go as far as to say that your opinions have enough creditability to make next months magazine. Please keep your strong, honest opinions on the game coming, speak soon.
--------------------
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
Edited by stephen_woodside (21/02/2008 22:26)
|
MyBoyHarry
member
Reged: 21/02/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
Firstly welcome to the forum MyBoyHarry mate. Secondly, wow, what an introduction, that i agree with in many ways. I will make more of a full response in due course but for the time being, i understand your strong views on this matter. I would even go as far as to say that your opinions have enough creditability to make next months magazine. Please keep your strong, honest opinions on the game coming, speak soon.
Thanks Stephen.
I've been a reader of World Soccer for about 30 years now and have been meaning to contribute to the site for a while now.
I'm pleased i've joined and been able to add to the debate about this issue.
|
Oboylio
member
Reged: 01/03/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
I'm sure that, in Saudi Arabia or Tokyo, they'd love to see Cristiano Ronaldo strut his stuff for Manchester United, but who would want to watch Wigan play Birmingham, or Fulham face Bolton? The 'Big Four' are pretty much the only ones that foreigners want to watch, and they have pre-season tours abroad anyway.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
