I'm sure by now most of you are aware at what seems to be an absolutely ludicrous move to screen ten premier league games per season from the highest bidders of various foreign countries. I'm probably not the only one that saw this coming - Eggert Magnusson said as much a few months before he left west ham, and to be honest the amount of foreign investment and ownership of clubs has made me think for a while how they imagine making the money back they have invested -after all these foreign owners haven't made their money by chance and certainly know what they're doing.
As expected, the fans and the press have greeted this idea with much anger and disgust, and quite rightly so. More surprising is Wenger's belief that this is a good idea, although the amount of chairman and directors of other clubs stating the idea has potential is very worrying. Only gareth southgate - not exactly the greatest of forces within the british game, seems to think this is a ridiculous idea (amongst managers at least) and although the idea is very much a blueprint, i cant really see 'true' supporters having much of a say in this proposal.
On the plus sides for clubs, the amount of money potentially available for one-off games is mind blowing for say Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd, and us, but i'd imagine teams like bolton and wigan would probably not raise a great deal of extra revenue (i may be wrong). Picture this: Bolton vs. Wigan at a 90,000 stadium in Japan, with only 30,000 odd at most turning up - what has been gained here??
So basically i understand why this concept is being explored, nothing in the premier league surprises me anymore, but of the many interviews and topics i've listened to and read, not many seem to give two fucks about the fans who support the team week in week out - i dont mean the odd fan who watches the occassional home game, i mean the guys who do their best to watch home and away all season, who are having their loyalty taken for granted. I'm under no illusions: the move to ashburton grove has given me the great privelege of being able to watch the team i love, and i do my best to go to as many away games as possible, and quite simply many cant afford to or have family commitments etc. I hasten to add im not trying to say im a hardcore supporter, i may be seen by many as an 'occassional fan' by my definition but im going off the point here.
Everyone does their best to go to games for the team they love, but increasingly money has distanced fans from their clubs - and this hair-brained proposal seems no different. I have felt increasingly alienated by arsenal from a commercial point of view - it seems that supporting a top club has its pitfalls, such as the corporate side not seeming to care about their real fans who know the heritage and history and who have fond memories of teams and players past and present - what i would have given to be at anfield in 89 but i was only 6 and have seen plenty of great moment since.
Finally, what annoys me most is what happens if one takes a stand at these type of things. I've read many valid points for people handing in their season ticket or refusing to no longer go to matches but does this really make a difference? If i or any of you decided to stop going to games, especially home ones, all that would happen is more plastic fans would fill up the stadium, diluting the atmopshere further and potentially watching the greatest football ever played under the wenger era. Now you tell me how that's fair??
does anyone else feel my pain???
-
tomkingsbury
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:15 am
- Location: coventry
TK, I understand a lot of the arguments against this proposal (which by the way has a 1% chance of actually becoming reality), but I don't get this one about playing an extra game abroad taking the game away from established fans.
Fans who, like me, go week in, week out and have done for years would still have their 19 home games plus cup games, but there would be an additional game which could be watched by people in other parts of the world and by UK-based Arsenal fans going for a weekend away.
Of course, only people with enough cash would be able to go for a long weekend or week in Dubai, New York or Hong Kong but it doesn't take away from the fact that we would still have our 19 home games.
How is that making football more remomte from us?
The only argument I can see is that it would add to the commercialisation of football. But we're already in a heavily commercialised sport, and I don't see this sort of proposal changing that. If you don't like commercialised football, fair play, I have mates who follow Orient, Bristol Rovers and Brighton who would say the same, but what interest would you have in top level English football today?
This proposal really isn't going to happen, but as Wenger says, it's good that new ideas are being considered. What worries me more is the narrow-minded response of Platini, Blatter etc - being conservative and not adapting only increases the possibilities of more imaginative and more commercial elements (people like David Dein) pushing for a breakaway European (or even one day, global) superleague. Breakaways when established competitions have become stagnant have happened in cricket twice (Kerry Packer in the 80s and now with the Indian breakaway league) and we should look at examples like those.
Fans who, like me, go week in, week out and have done for years would still have their 19 home games plus cup games, but there would be an additional game which could be watched by people in other parts of the world and by UK-based Arsenal fans going for a weekend away.
Of course, only people with enough cash would be able to go for a long weekend or week in Dubai, New York or Hong Kong but it doesn't take away from the fact that we would still have our 19 home games.
How is that making football more remomte from us?
The only argument I can see is that it would add to the commercialisation of football. But we're already in a heavily commercialised sport, and I don't see this sort of proposal changing that. If you don't like commercialised football, fair play, I have mates who follow Orient, Bristol Rovers and Brighton who would say the same, but what interest would you have in top level English football today?
This proposal really isn't going to happen, but as Wenger says, it's good that new ideas are being considered. What worries me more is the narrow-minded response of Platini, Blatter etc - being conservative and not adapting only increases the possibilities of more imaginative and more commercial elements (people like David Dein) pushing for a breakaway European (or even one day, global) superleague. Breakaways when established competitions have become stagnant have happened in cricket twice (Kerry Packer in the 80s and now with the Indian breakaway league) and we should look at examples like those.
-
Red Gunner
- Posts: 5778
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:25 pm
- Location: London
What a great idea a Super European League is, eh? Arsenal would challenge for it regularly, wouldn’t they?26may1989 wrote:This proposal really isn't going to happen, but as Wenger says, it's good that new ideas are being considered. What worries me more is the narrow-minded response of Platini, Blatter etc - being conservative and not adapting only increases the possibilities of more imaginative and more commercial elements (people like David Dein) pushing for a breakaway European (or even one day, global) superleague. Breakaways when established competitions have become stagnant have happened in cricket twice (Kerry Packer in the 80s and now with the Indian breakaway league) and we should look at examples like those.
Let's say there is a SEL, which clubs go into it:Arsenal
Chelsea
Man Utd
Liverpool
Barcelona
Valencia
Real Madrid
Sevilla
Roma
Inter Milan
Juventus
AC Milan
Bayer Munich
Ajax
PSV
Olympiakos
Although playing big clubs throughout the whole season is mouth-watering and travelling to Nou Camp, Bernebau, San Siro and the likes is great; but the fatigue of the players and the disappointment of the fans will be massive. Arsenal would not challenge for that league every season nor will others. You are also taking a lot away from the small clubs who wouldn’t be able to progress without playing against big clubs.
The league would be all about making money rather than winning the league. The ticket prices will be as big as ever. It will be a franchise league with brands whose target is to make money. In the end of the season, fat business directors will review the profits and if they are good; the directors wouldn’t care if their club is mediocre on the pitch.
It will be all about making money as I said before but one day fans will have enough and will turn away. I know I would. Stupid club directors have to remember that we are the fans and not some customers or clients as they are starting to refer to us.
Khalid, if you read my post again, you'll see that I didn't say we should have a European superleague; I said failing to adapt the existing competitions in Europe to new realities plays into the hands of those (like Dein) who would want a superleague and would bring about a breakaway to achieve it. The message is really "Adapt or die".khalid_red wrote:What a great idea a Super European League is, eh? Arsenal would challenge for it regularly, wouldn’t they?
-
Red Gunner
- Posts: 5778
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:25 pm
- Location: London
Funnily, at first I though you said "we should" but I read a couple of times again before I understood what you really meant. I was just explaining why there shouldn't be SEL as you said in your post. The first two questions were just sarcastic and weren't targeted at you.26may1989 wrote:Khalid, if you read my post again, you'll see that I didn't say we should have a European superleague; I said failing to adapt the existing competitions in Europe to new realities plays into the hands of those (like Dein) who would want a superleague and would bring about a breakaway to achieve it. The message is really "Adapt or die".khalid_red wrote:What a great idea a Super European League is, eh? Arsenal would challenge for it regularly, wouldn’t they?
-
tomkingsbury
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:15 am
- Location: coventry
i never meant it was making it remote, jsut another example of football going down the infinite slippery slope of commercialism. Fair point its only one game, but i was under the impression the premier league was attempting to reduce the number of teams rather than extending it. like you say, if im feeling alienated from commercial football, there is other avenues but i love arsenal - end of.26may1989 wrote: Of course, only people with enough cash would be able to go for a long weekend or week in Dubai, New York or Hong Kong but it doesn't take away from the fact that we would still have our 19 home games.
How is that making football more remomte from us?
the way i see it, its the english premier league, so watch it in england. if i wanted to watch barcelona play, part of the experience is going to the nou camp, rather than watching it in america. however, the chances of it happening do appear remote, but dont rule it out.
Listening to five live earlier, a guy said he was goin to contact all official forums to organise a one match boycott of premier league clubs, whihc may make an impact on attendances to show we have a voice. Whether this will happen may be a little less likely than the premier league abroad but does he ahve a point that we should boycott a game to make a point or is it going OTT? Not sure whether id boycott an arsenal game just yet unless this foreign game thing started gaining momentum.
