[overkill]

Not very long ago we all discussed the influx of new, mainly US investors into UK, specifically English football. Many argued that they were a negative factor, many, although nearly all from clubs who had US or overseas owners, did not.

However, in a telling new revelation, it has emerged that West Hams new chairman is not just speculating, but merely bringing out into the open, ideas that have already been floated by these 'benign' US investors.

See the following:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/7063261.stm

As the side article warns, the prem is only to eager to listen to new offers for more money. Will the growing number of powerful US chairmen, and major shareholders like Kronke listen to fans rather than business models? No, as we said all along they wouldn't, they won't listen to the fans in a million years.

Besides the words 'I just don't see it happening' don't inspire much confidence from men who said that the England team would 'always come at the top of their prorities'. If the offer is big enough, it'll happen.

Well, I for one don't fancy key fixtures being played in the US. It's the very thin edge of the wedge and the final nail in footballs coffin. Will Liverpool fans fancy a quick trip to NYC to see them play Arsenal? I think not.

But then 'it won't happen will it' say the 'optimistic'.

Care to bet?

[Steven]

Pffft. Next you will be saying Beckham will play in a English Premiership league match again... but for the LA

[pixelpixel]

And the crowds will be shouting "Go Long"

[Miron]

if it is for popularization of a certain sport i find it good.
but since money rules it will probably be the opposite
this wy or another some events will go across atlantic, both directions though.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Miron

if it is for popularization of a certain sport i find it good.
but since money rules it will probably be the opposite
this wy or another some events will go across atlantic, both directions though.

Sorry? How can moving competitive games away from where the fans can actually see them, be good? Frankly I don't give a stuff whether the yanks do or do not take up football. Many have argued (with some conviction) that it would be a (very) bad thing.

Just look what happens when they do throw money at a sport and the US public do become interested? They dominate it, and take it over lock, stock and barrel. If that's a good thing then I'm going to win the Euro millions tonight.

Which I'm not...............

[overkill]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Pffft. Next you will be saying Beckham will play in a English Premiership league match again... but for the LA

..........stranger things have happened.

[Orson]

I can certainly see some matches involving English being played over there at some point, although I doubt very much if it will ever be the premier league. Possibly some 'special' or new competition, perhaps even the Charity Shield, or possibly some legs of the Champions League or UEFA Cup.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Orson

I can certainly see some matches involving English being played over there at some point, although I doubt very much if it will ever be the premier league. Possibly some 'special' or new competition, perhaps even the Charity Shield, or possibly some legs of the Champions League or UEFA Cup.

Why not? As the BBC commented, money, these days, is all that talks as far as the clubs and PL are concerned. If the number of US investors grows, I can't see a PL with that amount of pressure being put on it, resisting. Even if they wanted to...........

The game, once that happens, is over. What relevance will it have left once we start watching games being played, whatever competition they are, that are not in either of the clubs home grounds? Or of course, as I said way back, maybe they will be.

[Marc]

unless the Premier League themselves decide to allow it, it'll never happen, and even if they allowed it I can't see any of the big clubs doing it. The league is 1 home, 1 away for each team against each other team, can you see any of the top clubs giving up home advantage against one of their rivals??

Cup finals yes, league matches no.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Marc

unless the Premier League themselves decide to allow it, it'll never happen, and even if they allowed it I can't see any of the big clubs doing it. The league is 1 home, 1 away for each team against each other team, can you see any of the top clubs giving up home advantage against one of their rivals??

Cup finals yes, league matches no.

Who is the premier leauge really run by? The Clubs. Who increasingly owns the clubs? Americans. Who care not one fig about the supporters and are only interested in the TV revenue and promoting their own interests at home? The Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the clubs owners are increasingly overseas, aren't interested in 'tradition', and if they can make more money by playing a game in the US, in front of a huge televised audience, that even 'half hearted' is still way huger than ours, they will play games where they want.

I cannot understand why the simple fact that once these guys own the club, they can then do pretty much what they want with them, escapes people?!

In a situation where there are shareholders around to stop any such venture then fine, they, and PL can veto any such move. But, these new investors are taking over clubs lock and stock. It belongs to them. As such if they want to move it Mars to play games they can and the PL can't stop them. I doubt, now we have the MK Dons model as a precedent, they could even if they wanted to.

But all these was warned about when they first came over..............

[plonky]

Originally Posted by overkill

Will Liverpool fans fancy a quick trip to NYC to see them play Arsenal? I think not.

Did it for a pre-season friendly in 2004..well we were playing Celtic rather than Arsenal...but it should NEVER happen for a league game. How on earth would it work regarding home/away fixtures, ST holder commitments etc

[DJT75]

Originally Posted by plonky

Did it for a pre-season friendly in 2004..well we were playing Celtic rather than Arsenal...but it should NEVER happen for a league game. How on earth would it work regarding home/away fixtures, ST holder commitments etc

Don't think it ever would. Also don't think any of the American owners would be remotely interested in doing it either. They're not stupid, they know the differences with live sport in the US & live sport here - they can see the differences & since when does the Sport need more Global coverage anyway? It's only the US that don't understand it or even like it generally, so they're not going to make more money upsetting the rest of the world just to play some random one-off game in the States.

Whereas Eggert Magnusson has already shown he's not the brightest of sparks...

[Orson]

What may happen is there is some sort of World League created, with the top clubs from each country compete in. But the countries involved would only be the ones where there is the greatest revenue to be made. And if the greatest amount of revenue is generated by all the games being played in America, then that's what would happen.

What I don't know is how the economies of it all stack up - if there aren't 60,000 at Old Trafford every week, that has a certain loss, but then there is the additional revenue that would be lost due to merchandise, pies, bovril, whatever. I wonder how many Americans would be needed on Pay Per View, or how much advertising revenue would be needed to be generated to cover the UK losses? There is obviously a massive merchandising opportunity in both the USA and Asia, which is probably the biggest target.

[DJT75]

Originally Posted by Orson

What may happen is there is some sort of World League created, with the top clubs from each country compete in. But the countries involved would only be the ones where there is the greatest revenue to be made. And if the greatest amount of revenue is generated by all the games being played in America, then that's what would happen.

What I don't know is how the economies of it all stack up - if there aren't 60,000 at Old Trafford every week, that has a certain loss, but then there is the additional revenue that would be lost due to merchandise, pies, bovril, whatever. I wonder how many Americans would be needed on Pay Per View, or how much advertising revenue would be needed to be generated to cover the UK losses? There is obviously a massive merchandising opportunity in both the USA and Asia, which is probably the biggest target.

Exactly, are Arsenal going to make $6million playing one game in New York? I don't think so......

[overkill]

Originally Posted by DJT75

Don't think it ever would. Also don't think any of the American owners would be remotely interested in doing it either. They're not stupid, they know the differences with live sport in the US & live sport here - they can see the differences & since when does the Sport need more Global coverage anyway? It's only the US that don't understand it or even like it generally, so they're not going to make more money upsetting the rest of the world just to play some random one-off game in the States.

Whereas Eggert Magnusson has already shown he's not the brightest of sparks...

However, Magnusson was not the only one floating the idea. The US investors were making similar noises, and no-one has denied that they have discussed it - which includes Liverpool, Villa and Utd's US contingent. Lerner has in fact already said it's a good idea. Which makes me wonder where the 'none of American owners would be remotely interested in it' comes from?

The US investors don't see the game the way you do. You see 'a club', they see 'a name'. You see a football team, they see an 'asset'. If they see an opportunity to make money by playing games in the US, then that is what will happen.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'I'm not listening' is just playing into their hands.

Orson, great point. This is exactly the problem. Even if 60,000 do turn up each week, all that does is staunch some of the 'other' outgoings clubs have today. When you add up the weekly takings through the door, after tax, I doubt it would even cover one top players wages. As such the danger is already there. If TV, sponsorship and advertising provides the bulk of the revenue, then who cares if the club moves venue? With US style attrition marketing and greater exploitation of the Far East markets they can afford to ignore it. After all, what does someone in Asia, Africa or where-ever care if Utd play at Old Trafford? It's just a brand name, and brand names can be changed..........

The globalisation of football has further eroded the clubs roots, and while we sit here pretending it will all go away, and it's nothing to worry about, the greater the threat grows.

It's already happened to clubs on the continent.

[DJT75]

*Sticks fingers in ears* 'I'm not listening'

Just don't think it would happen, I've never personally seen a quote from a yank investor suggesting it & I really don't think they would gain anything financially by doing it....Although they ultimately have the power, there's enough European influence in all clubs still to advise it's not the wisest idea. I can see managers walking rather than putting up with that...

Although I can see a few of the smaller, less successful clubs (you know, like Spurs ) thinking it's easier to face giants like West Ham in Milwaukee than it is in East London.

[Orson]

This shouldn't concern me anyway, I'm a Derby season ticket holder

[overkill]

Originally Posted by DJT75

*Sticks fingers in ears* 'I'm not listening'

Just don't think it would happen, I've never personally seen a quote from a yank investor suggesting it & I really don't think they would gain anything financially by doing it....Although they ultimately have the power, there's enough European influence in all clubs still to advise it's not the wisest idea. I can see managers walking rather than putting up with that...

Although I can see a few of the smaller, less successful clubs (you know, like Spurs ) thinking it's easier to face giants like West Ham in Milwaukee than it is in East London.

I hope it doesn't happen, and in my youth I would have dismissed it all as 'paper talk'. Sadly, in my (later) middle age, I find myself far less likely to take such an optimistic view.

Possibly due to the fact that US sports investors;
a) aren't known for giving a flying **** what the fans, other members of the board, or the other clubs think,
b) have moved clubs around like chess pieces in the US,
c) are the tip of the current wave and this the only the beginning not the end of it (sadly) and as such the days of 'European investors' outnumbering them will very likely become a footnote in history
d) know in any business it's the owner of a company who has the last word, not the consumers.

I would like to agree with you, I really would, but the sad truth is, Leopards don't change their spots. Again, I don't see why US investors, a hard faced breed not noted for giving a monkeys about anything but a big return, should suddenly go all 'cuddly' and 'caring' about fans and 'tradition'.

The bottom line is this, gate revenue is not high enough to cover our poor, hard done by, overworked premadonnas wages and as such additional revenue that can be generated by charging US punters, advertisers, and of course that overflowing cash well, US TV, will move higher up the list than keeping the PL and the clubs actual fans happy.

On a lighter note, and of course totally unrelated, there is another 'Wall Street' film in the making starring M Douglas again..............

[JohnG]

It will all end in tears, as we've been saying for a few years now. I've lost interest in most domestic football now.