As suggested a couple of weeks back common sense has prevailed and the 7 sub rule is back ,can only help our youngsters coming through , I for one am very happy about this ( also means my contact wasnt feeding me BS)
Yes, Proud. A spurious Loach transfer rumour has everything to do with the 7 sub rule coming back, doesn't it?
Great news about the 7-sub rule. Haven't read up on the verdict but would actually like them to add some sort of criteria to the extra 2 places... such as they have to be under 21/Academy- grown or something!
I clicked on the wrong one by accident sorry. Meant to post in the rumour one One the subs thing it was stupid to put it back to 5 anyway. Good to see common sense has brought it back to 7
unfortunately been very quiet for a few weeks, Have left an email ,but dont want to hassle too much , so we wait Looks like KA`s rumours are running behind schedule
oh right! lol...i do hate when people use initials i don't recognise lol.takes me a lot longer to read the post than it would for the names to be typed in full lol
Fantastic news. Especially for Matty Whichelow/Mark Yeates/Craig Forsyth. All too often we needed a wide player to come on, but ended up with Prince or Britt because we usually filled the bench with a defensive option, Buaben and two different kinds of strikers.
Am I by myself about the number of substitutes and replacements. I think we should have less than five. The reasons are that it the makes a manager think a bit more about a strategy before the game and he has to consider which platers are better for a game instead of having an army of extras to chose from. My second reason is the clubs with less money will have to find more to keep two players on the bench. If you have eleven footballers playing and then seven substitutes that is eighteen players for a match. Then there is the other players in the squad, perhaps another seven, who may or may not get a chance. Some will play for the reserve team and others may travel with the first team just in case of injury or illness. I do not want to see people not working but to lose the money paid to two people for what could be doing nothing, with WFCs salary cap as an example could save 2 x 52 x 5,000 = GBP520,000 in one year, more for other teams. In some matches last season Portsmouth had four or five substitutes because of their financial problems and apart from their points being taken they could have remained in the league with this limitation. We have financial problems even now if the money was not paid to players this week is for believing and having to spend so much on something that would not produce a reward is frivolity. I know the unexpected might happen an the 16 year old apprentice might appear at the end of a game and score the winning goal but I would prefer to have a club to follow rather than a dead football club that used seven substitutes.
You have put the reasoning behind the move to 5 subs very well ak. I think the only reason to have more is because reserve teams have virtually stopped playing in competitive matches. The money saved by taking a reserve side for fixtures also has to be weighed against the cost of more subs. I am still not sure however that sitting on a bench week after week is that good for a young or any age player. To go to another extreme you could get to the state of American football where you have one attacking side and one defensive side playing in the same match
Ak you saw last season how it stymied the chances of our youngsters getting game time , our business plan is bringing on our youngsters to such a degree other clubs wish to buy them , If they are not in the shop window ,how do we achieve this?
that made me chuckle! we couldn't. It's a great thing that it'll be back to 7...and a certain young Mensah seems very happy about it on Twitter
H, does that mean that SD has said to him that he was more likely to be involved with the first team if this rule came in?
Yay!!!!!!!!!! 7 subs are back. Why they got rid of them is another question. So, Why did they get rid of them?
