Subs reduced from 7 to 5 (1 Viewer)

[Coventry La La La]

FOOTBALL League clubs have voted to reduce the number of substitutes that can be named on the teamsheet for matches in the npower Football League from seven to five.

The vote was taken at an EGM at Leicester City's King Power Stadium.

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."

Clubs will still be permitted to name 7 substitutes in the Carling Cup and FA Cup and 5 in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy.

 

---

[procdoc]

not sure if I agree with this to be honest, I like having 7 subs

 

[cornoccfc]

disagree with the change, 7 subs gives clubs the chance to have a more experimental bench and of course more options to bring on

 

[BurbageSkyBlues]

Good, will mean the managers still need to give careful consideration to the subs they choose, on a game by game basis.

It should prevent the rich clubs from being able to cover all bases simply because they have greater depth in their squads. Over the season, of course, they will still have the advantage to cover injuries and suspensions, but at least on a per game basis , the managers will have to use some tactical nouse

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think it is sensible in terms of finance. Clubs will have to look at the size of their squads for all their teams. It will mean less players on the wage bill - which might be significant if you have reserve and academy sides as well requiring 7 subs. Players want to play not be bench warmers, I also think managers have a fair idea who they are going to give a run out from the bench before they start a match. Yes unexpected injuries can happen but 5 players on the bench should be enough

 

[Marty]

I don't like this idea, gives managers less options, gives the youth players less chance to see what it's really like when the pressure is on to get results.

OSB - if they want to seriously cut the wage clubs are paying out they should introduce a limit on the squad.

 

[dojer]

I think this is a backwards step, the 7 subs mean that teams are better able to react to changes in the game, such as injuries and goals. Also 5 subs means that peripheral players will feel more on the periphery which would harm dressing room morale in my opinion

 

[SkyBluegilby]

Yep Backards step.less opportunity for Youth/Fringe players to get a shout,

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Does this rule apply to the Championship?

 

[oldskyblue58]

"OSB - if they want to seriously cut the wage clubs are paying out they should introduce a limit on the squad."

Wasnt thinking it would be the mainstay of cost savings just a minor contribution Marty

Actually if they really want to address wage costs they would have the balls to only pay out what they can afford and i cant think of many teams that do that, if any. Limit to squad size doesnt address the finance if in the smaller squad teams pay more to their players.

I can see the arguement for 7, all valid points, but how many times do you see no subs until last 5 or 10 minutes. Can only use 3 of them anyway. The problem is more that clubs very often cannot afford enough players to run a reserve team, which would be far more effective in developing players or giving players a game than 7 bench warmers

 

[rob9872]

SISU have welcomed the move and told AT that he can now afford to sell two more players. They have suggested Clingan and Juke

 

[CovScott88]

I can see why they did it, but I have to say I preferred the 7 subs.

 

[Marty]

"OSB - if they want to seriously cut the wage clubs are paying out they should introduce a limit on the squad."

Wasnt thinking it would be the mainstay of cost savings just a minor contribution

Actually if they really want to address wage costs they would have the balls to only pay out what they can afford and i cant think of many teams that do that, if any. Limit to squad size doesnt address the finance if in the smaller squad teams pay more to their players.

I can see the arguement for 7, all valid points, but how many times do you see no subs until last 5 or 10 minutes. Can only use 3 of them anyway. The problem is more that clubs very often cannot afford enough players to run a reserve team, which would be far more effective in developing players or giving players a game than 7 bench warmers

Neither does having 2 less subs each week. Its not compulsary (SP?) to go with 7 subs is it? I think the football league have got it right on finance, with clubs only allowing to pay a certain % of money out a season.

 

[gouldberg]

Don't like this change at all. 7 subs was a great way to introduce some youth into the side. It was a great way to give that guy coming back from injury a 20 minute run out. Now all of that is gone.....backwards step just returning to a tired and tested system from the past.

Football is one of the sports that continues to either stand still or go backwards. I wonder when the sport will ever start moving into the modern era?

 

[Skyblueloyal]

Sadly I remember in the days when we could only name one sub, but agree with the post by Skybluegilby that this stops youth/fringe players from getting a look in

 

[oldskyblue58]

Think i said that the savings would be minor, certainly for us - but maybe that will be more significant the further down the leagues you go, and this is for all the Football League. Bottom line is that clubs are going to look at anything that helps them save money because survival comes first

No 7 isnt compulsory but the only time teams didnt take 7 is if they physically couldnt. Frankly not bothered if 5 or 7 but just giving the rationale behind why the vote went for 5 not 7

The league are to set an arbitrary % in the hope that it is at the right level, personally I support the move as a step in the right direction but I am sure there will be loop holes and special cases cropping up. Plus it isnt clear what constitutes turnover, does it apply to total or just football wages, will such things as "consultants" be included in total payroll, How do existing contracts fit in to this etc ...........there are all sorts of things that might still be possible that will "bend" not break the rules......... think there are a lot of questions still be answered.

What they havent done is sold it to the fans who will still want the signings, the stars on big wages etc. It is going to be a rocky ride for a few years. It hasnt addressed the Board room mindsets at many clubs either because end of the day the directors are the ones that choose for the clubs to live beyond their means - and sadly my guess is they will find ways round the rules

 

[egastap]

"OSB - if they want to seriously cut the wage clubs are paying out they should introduce a limit on the squad."

Wasnt thinking it would be the mainstay of cost savings just a minor contribution Marty

Actually if they really want to address wage costs they would have the balls to only pay out what they can afford and i cant think of many teams that do that, if any. Limit to squad size doesnt address the finance if in the smaller squad teams pay more to their players.

I can see the arguement for 7, all valid points, but how many times do you see no subs until last 5 or 10 minutes. Can only use 3 of them anyway. The problem is more that clubs very often cannot afford enough players to run a reserve team, which would be far more effective in developing players or giving players a game than 7 bench warmers

Hey OldSkyBlue...we remember the time when there was NO subs...right? Then they introduced one sub, then three, then five and finally seven. Always thought seven was over the top, particularly as four of them, at the least, were destined to watch the entire game from the dugout. For me three was the best option, GK, defender and attacker or midfield.

 

[pusbccfc]

Bench for leicester,
Dunn, deegan, clarke, eastwood, bigiramana

 

[shmmeee]

They should have just said 2 or 3 have to be training at the club since say the age of 14 or some such rule to ensure homegrown players are given a chance. Wouldn't have made any difference to us then!

 

[ccfctommy]

Firstly the timing is terrible, who changes the rules of the competition two weeks before its about to start?

Secondly clubs will play with fire by naming five outfield players and have no keeper on the bench, it's just change for changes sake. Why does the PL have seven subs and only five in the rest of professional football?

 

[ccfctommy]

...also they have voted to get rid of multiball.

 

[sw88]

Maybe they've changed it for our benefit after all, we're gonna struggle for 7 subs without using the young kids at this rate (I know statistically this is probably not true but could be the case with a few injuries / suspensions...)

 

[sw88]

...also they have voted to get rid of multiball.

Thank god if thwy have! One of the most pointless and unfair things introduced to the game! Clubs encouraged ball boys to use it when 0 0, or when wanting to hold a lead, or when wanting to hold a draw! Unless it goes out for home team possession!! Pointless!! (And our ball boys were shite at playing this game. Far too honest!)

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

I don't really see the point in this. I like 7 subs as it allows you to name a couple of youngsters, not to mention a GK without comprimising tactical options.

As far as it levelling the playing field goes, I don't think it would stretch any Championship club to name 7 subs. Just stick a couple of kids on the bench. I know the youth sides usually play Saturday mornings, but they can surely manage by promoting players from younger age groups. It's a sacrifice worth making, as even being on the bench is invaluable experience for a young or untried player. Bobby Gould kept Sean Flynn on the bench for almost an entire season, just so he could learn what pro football was all about, before he was ready to start regularly.

 

[ccfc_Tom]

More chance to snap some players up maybe on or cheap if theres a chance they wont even be on the bench at their own clubs