39th Game

[Red_Polo]

It's an absolutely ****ing horrible idea. If you want competitive games abroad to make more money, let's get back into the CL. Let talk about a way of making the world club cup work.

This 39th game idea is ****ing bull****. The only reasons games should be played away from the clubs home are for the sake of fairness, safety or practicality. Not money.

[topscorer]

I wouldn't want it done but moving away from whether games should or shouldn't be played abroad and considering the 'fairest' way to do it how about something like this: -

1. Each team chooses one home fixture to play abroad

2. A 'draft' (excuse American terminology) for choosing which home game you play abroad and where is based on the previous seasons position. So third place Championship team is 1st, second placed Championship is 2nd down to the previous seasons Champions picking last.

3. The Premier League chooses 20 venues for the games (maybe based on cities 'bidding' to host a Premier League) and the home team can choose one of those locations.

This means that every team will play one 'home' game abroad but also will only play one 'away' game abroad.

So this season Blackpool would have got first pick for their home game abroad. Maybe they would have chosen the Mancs or Chelsea because that would make a lot of money or they might have chosen Liverpool because we had a bad season but still have a huge support base abroad. Or would they go for an 'easy' team because Premier League fans in Singapore would fill out a stadium to see ANY competitive Premier League game and would likely support Blackpool because they 'chose' Singapore to be their home game?

I think this would be as 'fair' a way to start playing games abroad as you could find if it was going to be done.

[Icon]

Make it the first game - extended pre season fixture almost...

IF it's going to happen

[malg]

Evidently Tom Werner is asking the question, raising the prspect of a 39th game in the US according to the BBC.

I would rather it be a 37th or 35th game and they drop the league in size by one or two teams.

What a load of ****e if this goes thru, I doubt it will, as not many teams would take it up. All EPL games should only be played in this country.

[focusedonfootball]

The 39th game is not only a totally **** idea but also a not particularly inventive way of engaging global audiences. Did anyone catch a recent 5 live on the world cup bids? All the usual big stadiums, new infrastructure bollocks. And then there was Japan’s bid. ‘What we’re developing’ they explained, ‘ is a roll out, football pitch size flat screen. At the world cup games we’ll have under pitch mikes and 200 high definition 3-d cameras. The games will then be broadcast live to stadiums in other countries were life size holograms of the players will be projected up from the screen on the pitch.’ Franchise that. Keep the games in Liverpool. Jet off Gerry Marsden for the pre match singing.

[IJM]

I'm not particularly for this 39th game idea. But I have had a thought that would get round some of the problems.

Instead of a 39th game, why not have it out of the 38 games by replacing two of the games (home and away against a given team) with one game at a neutral venue? It shortens the whole season to 37 games and avoids any unfair advantages or disadvantages.

[Exiled_red]

I'm not particularly for this 39th game idea. But I have had a thought that would get round some of the problems.

Instead of a 39th game, why not have it out of the 38 games by replacing two of the games (home and away against a given team) with one game at a neutral venue? It shortens the whole season to 37 games and avoids any unfair advantages or disadvantages.

Not really because some teams will only play once against Chelsea or Man Utd while other teams would play them twice and only play Blackpool or West Brom once

As soon as you go beyond playing everyone home and away you make the league unfair, be that by adding an extra game or playing one of your home games somewhere else.

[kemm1]

A 39th game is a horrible idea

[Imy]

Reading our new Chairman's comments on the BBC website, he didn't mention a 39th game, just a game played abroad. I think a regular game played abroad similar to what the NFL does would work.

[alunevans]

Gutted. Seems we have another load of ****ing idiot owners. If this happens, I'm off for good.

This was the trigger for why I founded AFC Liverpool when it was talked of last time, so in case this ****e ever came in there'd be another version of my beloved reds out there.

There now is and it's going strong.

Let's face it, when a sport puts money even over the integrity of the competition by introducing a random extra match, then it's a farce and worthy of boycott.

The league winners are the best team in the league that season. End of argument. Introduce this nonsense and that won't ever be the case. There'll be the official league winners, and the real league winners over the 38 matches. Thoroughly disgraceful and motivated by nothing more than money.

This breakaway corporate league called the Premiership is hard enough to feel any affinity towards as it is. If they go down this road then I won't touch it with a barge pole because every match will be part of something that doesn't count - a league decided by a random 39th game.

Werner needs his arse smacked for this. If it's true then these owners have lost my support completely and they can **** off as quickly as the last lot.

No wonder I keep saying that football clubs need to be owned and run by their own supporters.

Clubs like AFC Wimbledon, FC United and AFC Liverpool show an alternative way of running football that is counterposed to this bloated Premier League and the greedy clueless money motivated *******s who together run and own it.

[alunevans]

I'm not particularly for this 39th game idea. But I have had a thought that would get round some of the problems.

Instead of a 39th game, why not have it out of the 38 games by replacing two of the games (home and away against a given team) with one game at a neutral venue? It shortens the whole season to 37 games and avoids any unfair advantages or disadvantages.

No. Leave it how it is. There is no motivation for this other than money, in which case there's no good reason for it. Any extra money will only go into the players pockets anyhow or into the owners pockets. There is no benefit to either us as fans or to the competition. So no no and no again.

[Nate7]

Don't agree with a league game being played overseas. But if the powers that be insist on a game played abroad why not something like the charity shield or something.

I think playing a league game abroad would be unfair on season ticket holders.

Also being honest I can't see two teams from the bottom of the league being a big sellout overseas, I think whe they talk about playing another game, it's the top sides that people are interested in

[Exiled_red]

Don't agree with a league game being played overseas. But if the powers that be insist on a game played abroad why not something like the charity shield or something.

I think playing a league game abroad would be unfair on season ticket holders.

Also being honest I can't see two teams from the bottom of the league being a big sellout overseas, I think whe they talk about playing another game, it's the top sides that people are interested in

The Charity Shield is the ideal game really, high profile, not affecting the league, no loss of a home game making the season unfair. It's already a one off game, and it's at the start of the season, so no jetting around the world mid season.

[Norbs]

Evidently Tom Werner is asking the question, raising the prspect of a 39th game in the US according to the BBC.

I would rather it be a 37th or 35th game and they drop the league in size by one or two teams.

Noooooo! That would put us at risk of relegation again

[Nate7]

Another alternative I'd actually like to see would be some sort of all-star game. Two teams made up of the best premier league players and managers