[GocartMozart]

While this might be selfish on my part, but this article hit a cord with me. I'd rather it happen sooner rather than later. Preferably, United, first game of the season, versus West Ham, Aston Villa or Fulham, or something like that.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...475914&cc=5901

Magnusson: US move would be 'good for the game'
Soccernet

West Ham United's non-executive chairman Eggert Magnusson thinks that taking the Premier League to the USA would be 'good for the game' and would boost soccer's global profile.


With the NFL playing their first regular season game away from home, a debate has opened up over whether the Premier League should follow suit and take English soccer to the US.

'I can see that happening sooner rather than later. It would be good for the game,' Magnusson told Sky Sports News.

Arsenal's American shareholder Stan Kroenke added: 'There is probably a good chance of getting a game to go over there because both owners could agree to it,' he said.

'I think there is a reasonable chance it could take place in the future.

'If the Premier League agreed to it you would have it done. It's something that would have to evolve over time - it would be great if it could be Arsenal.'

Wembley is the venue for the encounter between The Miami Dolphins and New York Giants, which takes place on Sunday.

And Jonathan Tisch, co-owner of NFL franchise the New York Giants, admits he would love to stage a Premier League clash in the Big Apple.

'Wearing another one of my hats as head of tourism in New York City, we would welcome an English game in the states,' he said.

'It would be great for New York's tourism, it would be great in the United States too to spread the game internationally.

'People want to be part of this global environment, and sport is a rallying point where people can put aside their differences and root for a team.'

However, a Premier League spokesman told the BBC that there were no current plans for a move.

'I just don't see it happening,' said the spokesman.

'With the way the league is structured - on a one-home, one-away basis - you would damage the integrity of the competition by fiddling with the dynamic of the League.'

queue: dimzy

[dimz]

Rubbish idea if you ask me. It creates too many political problems if you ask me. How do you ensure that it's fair from a home and away standpoint? You may say that the two teams involved can play their one home and away fixture on US soil and that's that. But what about the other teams? They don't warrant a chance to go over there and collect money too?

What about the fans that want to see all their team's home games but one is 6 hours flight away?

I'm open to change to evolve the game, but this is a step too far for me. Imagine the reaction of Everton fans, they were reluctant to move Goodison 10 mils out of liverpool to Kirby!

[RobsonLegend]

Great idea for fans who might otherwise be unable to attend matches in England.

Horrible idea from a purist's standpoint. Beyond the issue of which team is going to give up the home fixture, there's other home-related issues as well like what to do for season ticket holders, travel costs, security, travel demands on top of the regular schedule etc. etc.

I feel the same way about this as I do about the Miami/New York NFL game in London this Sunday: mild disgruntlement with a general tinge of apathy. I wish I could be as excited about it, but I just don't see it happening, nor do I see a need.

[GocartMozart]

alright so i can attack all or some of your points. I'l start with the ticket holders.

Robson:
Ticket holders: you just decrease the price by that amount before you sell the season tickets! Offer them up the first chance to purchase an inclusive "package" which is fairly cheap round trip flights and tickets to the "United" section of the new meadowlands stadium. Second pick should be One United members who are not season ticket holders, and finally general admission scemes.

Timing: you have to do this in August. Personally I don't see a better time. If the team doesn't like the result, they have time to change it throughout the season. By having the game in August you are also not competing with football, baseball, basketball, and at the same time you might be putting the spot light on the ML (possibly).

Security: Bring a security bloke to manage the outfit and handle it like you would a Tyneside derby; horses and all.

Travel costs: for the normal fan: Deal with it. There is no absolute perfect solution, but for the benefit of spreading the game, you have to analyze the cost/benefit analysis and this is a definite cost - one that is easily mitigated by the positive press and new consumers of the sport.

Travel demands on the players: Having it in August helps i scheduling for this. This is a nonissue in my opinion. You can schedule this to fit easily. Break out a calendar and take care of this issue.

Home/away issue: Yeah this sucks and I have no answer. It has to be something that is agreed upon. If it was me, I'd choose an opponent like Aston Villa, or West Ham who have enough of a following to make it interesting, but not so much that you hear them over the United games, and you sacrifice a home game. Trust me, if I'm there, the section around me will rival Old Trafford. From personal experience I wasn't particularly impressed with the lower levels of the Stretford end and I think too much is made over the atmostphere at OT when we play lower level teams. Admittedly, it's a different story against big teams. Would you prefer our away support at Villa Park or home support at OT? TO me the benefit of opening up the market a little more and getting some more attention is worth it, but I can see how this is a major point of contention.

Dimzy:
Political Issues: If you're a Brit and are tired of the Americanization, you should be aware of how much indie music is British, how international clothing styles move west, not east (particuarly the punk style of manchester in nyc, uggh it's annoying), and how for once the English game is infiltrating the Americans, instead of vice versa. Outside of this there are no political issues. Someone has to be first and I can't see any reason to not use United.

Money not gained by other teams: They have to deal with it and queue themselves up if they want in. Someone has to be first. No reason why not United.

Everton: This has nothing to do with Everton. Their bitching and complaining is of their own doing and has nothing to do with a one off game. They are complaining for a completely unrelated reason. The fans voted to move to that ground, not to play a single match there. There is a massive difference. Those fans are so bitter that they are second to Liverpool to the extent that they have to move to the fringe of Merseyside, while the red parts of town are in the prime spot. That's their issue, not playing somewhere for a single game.

[USAManUtd13]

I'd love to see it happen. If they wanted to make it work, all these "issues" would be worked out.

Bring 'em to the West Coast, though

[GocartMozart]

nah west cost flight time is brutal. I can understand going in plush planes for 6 or 7 hours, but any more than that is a biti much here imo.

[dimz]

I have problems with ur idea again Gocart. You say the season ticket holders can be offered packages...but United have so many ticket holders, what happens if most of them want to go? Does it really spread the game if of teh 82k fans in the stadium, 30k are United season ticket holders?

As it is, 1 game can make or break your season, so i think your 'timing' argument is null and void. No team wants to have the 'luxury' of blaming an opening day loss on it being a game played to spread football. The coach will want the best opportunity for his squad to get points.

You can't tell me that fatigue won't be somewhat of an issue. The time change alone can send you off. Especially over the period of 3-4 days, which is about the timeframe you intend to have the players and staff travelling for.

Economically, i can see it as a great idea, but it's just not feasible from an administrative point of view. (That's what i meant by political btw, sorry for the confusion). It'll involve too much controversy to plan both from the point of view of the teams that don't get to go, and the ones that have to go. Suppose a team is selected but they don't want to go? What then, you force them? What if none want to go?

nice discussion ppl, keep it going.

[funkdoctorspock]

Sports are no different than a major corporation. To maximize profits, they MUST put it on a global scale.

A game in New York would be ace. Massive sports market, with really an untapped footie scene. Yes, there is MLS, but it's not even close to the level of European football at the moment.

With regards to "lost" income and supporters losing out on a game. First, the team is normally given a very good cut of the gate and commercial dollars. Also, it's a chance for the respective teams to drop down roots in the city played. Secondly, season ticket holders are given a discount and usually a perk or two for the "lost" game. They are compensated.

If you look at the NFL, NHL and NBA, they've had season games outside of there territories. All aspiring to increase there visibility and $$$. Should be pointed out that teams that "lose" a home game are treated well. They gain/benefit in the end.

All have benefited from doing it and I really do see why the EPL shouldn't.

[GocartMozart]

it's not an easy choice. to placate the season holders you will have to use a system like we do for the CL and Cup finals. It has to be a lottery or something of the sort. Most will not go, but to keep them from making the comment, "Hey what about us, the away fan!" you have to give them a first choice shot at it. I'm sure with the current exchange rate and the opportunity to have a weekend in NYC, there would be significant demand.

It's not the easiest of conclusions, but there is not perfect result.

I agree, one game can do it, and this is probably the primary reason this won't happen. That said, this is a business move more than anything on the half of the owners and the league. If the owner wants to take the risk, he above all is the one who makes the decision. It is possible that we lose the league because of it, but that has tobe a calculated risk onthe part of the owners.

As for who gets to go over and play, assuming this was done, it would be done between owners. Two owners come together and present to the league their plan. The first to do it and convince the league of the plans idea, is the one that does it. The league decides at that point on a yes or no, or just says, we give all owners another 6 months to come up with something better. At the end of that time, we decide to go ahead with the first or best presentation, or we can not do it at all. Eitherway, leave it in the hands of the league to have the veto power. You have to choose a big four team and preferably a team that is mid table.

Fatigue is an issue. You can mitigate it by manipulating the schedule, but no doubt it effects the teams involved.



The other real problem is, where are they going to play? The Meadowlands i sartifical turf and I don't want United on turf. You could go to a big university pitch, but which one would that be? For me this is a big issue and I can't defend it. Call this paragraph a premptive strike

Finally I would like to point out that the reason the EPL is so successful today, is because it took a very Americanized sports structure, particularly when dealing with their cable deals. The success of the Premiership as an international brand, is ultimately at stake here and further taking this imperialistic stance is something I'd think the British were used to

[RobsonLegend]

Timing: you have to do this in August. Personally I don't see a better time. If the team doesn't like the result, they have time to change it throughout the season. By having the game in August you are also not competing with football, baseball, basketball, and at the same time you might be putting the spot light on the ML (possibly).

What an utter embarrassment it would be to the league if the matchup ends up drawing less than whatever preseason NFL game would be played that weekend, or (if it was played in New York) the Yankees or Mets series in the thick of a playoff chase that weekend outdraws the match.

Frankly, I wouldn't put it beyond either league in the US to purposely schedule a high-profile matchup in the area just to try and stick it to the Premiership and only further deepen the popular perception that football won't "make it" in the US.

Then again, it could end up being a great big up-yours from the footballing world to the sporting establishment in the US if the reverse ended up being the case. Risk-reward factor there for sure.