Back to Having 5 Substitutes for Football League Matches Next Season.

[Profondo Rosso]

Just been on SSN.

 

[Ian Marshall]

Just been on SSN.

I don't understand how 'they' think this is a good idea?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I think it will be a disadvantage to sides like ourselves with strength in depth.

 

[indierich06]

As in the approaching season, or the season after that?

 

[Ian Marshall]

I think it will be a disadvantage to sides like ourselves with strength in depth.

It will, especially with a lot of squad members to keep involved and rotated.

It will reintroduce the real value of a clogging, jack of all trades type footballer.

A step backwards for the Championship in my view.

I just don't understand the change - what is the thinking behind it?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

As in the approaching season, or the season after that?

Pretty sure for the approaching season, though not 100%.

 

[indierich06]

How are they allowed to do it at such short notice? Obviously sides like ours have prepared all summer and bought players under the assumption that we'd be utilise a wider range of players thanks to the 7 man substitute system. ****ing ridiculous if its this season.

 

[Jeff]

I don't understand how 'they' think this is a good idea?

I heard last month that this was likely. Carlisle were one of the clubs that proposed the change. They said it was to cut costs as they wouldn't have to take so many players to away matches. I don't understand why they can't just take a smaller squad anyway. Maybe they think richer clubs have an advantage, but it might also mean that it's more difficult for younger players to get playing time.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Football League clubs have today voted to reduce the number of substitutes named for npower Football League matches from seven to five.
The decision will come into effect next season after the vote was taken at an EGM at Leicester City’s King Power Stadium.

Managers will still be allowed to name seven replacements for FA Cup and Carling Cup matches and five in the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy.
A Football League spokesman said: “This was felt to be a sensible and prudent step given the financial challenges facing many football clubs and the commitment made earlier this summer to adopt UEFA’s Financial Fair Play framework.”

Suppose it is partly our fault then.

 

[Ian Marshall]

I heard last month that this was likely. Carlisle were one of the clubs that proposed the change. They said it was to cut costs as they wouldn't have to take so many players to away matches. I don't understand why they can't just take a smaller squad anyway. Maybe they think richer clubs have an advantage, but it might also mean that it's more difficult for younger players to get playing time.

It means exactly that in my opinion. If you only have 5 positions on the bench, you need to cover goalkeeper and then four of full back, centre back, midfielder, wideman, forward, striker, (etc - you get the point) - and you want proven players there. With 7, you often have the luxury of 2 youths who might not be your 1st options in any position, but can gain valuable experience for 10/15 mins at the end of a game you're winning 3-0, etc.

I don't like the change.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Lloyd Dyer and Martyn Waghorn are going to get pissed off quite quickly next season, seeing as they aren't even going to be substitutes in most games now.

 

[Ian Marshall]

Lloyd Dyer and Martyn Waghorn are going to get pissed off quite quickly next season, seeing as they aren't even going to be substitutes in most games now.

It's going to have quite far reaching and ranging consequences I think.

It also means players like Lloyd Dyer, who are quite specialist, are unlikely to be named on a bench.

Someone like Matt Oakley or Yuki Abe or Lee Peltier are perfect benchmen.

 

[lanxfox jnr]

Shambles

 

[Matt_B]

don't see the problem myself, we managed fine before it came into effect. It's hardly an entrenched rule.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I don't really see the harm in naming 7 subs nstead of 5, you can still only use three of them. Hence I think this is a shit idea. If some clubs are worried about the additional costs involved with naming an extra two subs then maybe they should have just relaxed the rule and made it so that you can name up to 7 subs rather than you have to name 7 exactly. Unless it was that way anyway? ither way I don't see a benefit in this..

 

[Jeff]

Unless it was that way anyway?

It was that way anyway. It was normal for some clubs not to name 7 subs last season.

 

[Ian Marshall]

don't see the problem myself, we managed fine before it came into effect. It's hardly an entrenched rule.

I basically just like getting antsy about things.

 

[city-faithful]

I basically just like getting antsy about things.

Have you heard they've bloody well banned conkers in the playground...

 

[Brown Nose]

Surprise, surprise. A thoroughly backward move by the Football League. I think any team should be able to name anything up to 11 subs, in theory one for each position. You can only make three changes anyway.

It's dumb decisions like this that will eventually lead to Premier League 2 and nail the future of the little clubs further.

 

[Mawsley]

I heard last month that this was likely. Carlisle were one of the clubs that proposed the change. They said it was to cut costs as they wouldn't have to take so many players to away matches.

They ought to get their own bus then and stop buying day return travelcards.