Football fans have reacted angrily to the news that the English Premier League have decided to play matches on foreign soil, with many claiming they will give up supporting football altogether; others say they will still attend matches, but will need to take more Fridays and Mondays off work sick.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore insisted, however, that playing games overseas would protect the domestic game, and generate much-needed revenue which would be re-distributed to clubs at all levels. As well as this, he said, playing matches abroad would provide an excellent opportunity to offload some of the 'undesirable element' amongst English fans.

Said Scudamore:

"We managed to get rid of the working class with all-seater stadia, executive boxes and astronomical admission prices. This latest move will frighten off more of the dregs of society, and make me...I mean...clubs, lots of cash."

As a trial, Mr Scudamore has sanctioned the rearrangement of a number of fixtures, starting with this weekend's Chelsea v. Liverpool game, which will now take place in Alice Springs, Australia. Monday's tussle between Arsenal and Blackburn will be played, not at the Emirates, but in the Emirates, in Dubai.

Other affected games include the League Two clash between Grimsby Town and Chesterfield, which has been moved from Cleethorpes to Basra, and the Blue Square Premier encounter that sees Cambridge United and Stevenage in a three o'clock kick-off at the Boca Juniors Stadium in Buenos Aires.

Because of low worldwide interest in the fixture, Sunderland v. Wigan will still be played at the Stadium of Light.

Ahh, well I just don't see it happening for one main reason.

FIFA wont allow it, it'll make the Premiership a showcase for internation league football, something that FIFA want to position themselves in.

As it's a competitive fixture too, and on foreign soil, the English FA and FIFA would have to approve it.

--

7 Substitutes on the other hand is a decent idea. Means we're more likely to see younger players having a 10 minute runaround as the vital subs would be covered by the first 5. Currently teams generally take a Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Striker and a utility player and can't fit many youth players in. Now it could be the same with 2 younger players.

The flip side of the argument is that it now means 2 extra players will not feature in a match when they could be playing in the Reserves or out on loan.

rather tiring I would have thought for the players - all that travel, jet lag etc.

[QUOTE=SimpyTimpy;3121791]Ahh, well I just don't see it happening for one main reason.

FIFA wont allow it, it'll make the Premiership a showcase for internation league football, something that FIFA want to position themselves in.

As it's a competitive fixture too, and on foreign soil, the English FA and FIFA would have to approve it.

--

7 Substitutes on the other hand is a decent idea. Means we're more likely to see younger players having a 10 minute runaround as the vital subs would be covered by the first 5. Currently teams generally take a Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Striker and a utility player and can't fit many youth players in. Now it could be the same with 2 younger players.

Unfortuantly mate it will happen as all 20 premier clubs have agreed to the idea because it is gonna generate around 5 million quid per club,and with the Premier League being the most attractive League and most lucrative league in the world FIFA and UEFA will not want to rock the boat.

And the Idea of 7 subs is a damned good Idea,get 2 or 3 goals up and give the young uns a run out for last 15 mins

--

Currently teams generally take a Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Striker and a utility player
.

Unless you are Brian Robson and don't bother with a GK on the bench.:mad: