I know it doesn't concern us for next next season, but it will be interesting to see what happens with some of the votes for change. Particularly the rules on overseas loans, to avoid another Watford situation. 51% of the Football League clubs, and 51% of Championship sides, need to vote in favour of a change, for it to be passed.
How many clubs have exploited this in the past? I wonder how long it will be til we find out the results?
I really wouldn't be surprised if they didn't vote for those restrictions. They might like to keep all of their own options open.
I don't know, but whichever berk voted for the 5 subs rule to come back in should be relegated to tea fetcher. Also be good to see some clarification on the FFP rules (which still confuse me a little).
No reason to change that at all. Nothing in the rules to say you have to name 7 subs. It should never have been changed last time from 7 to 5. Thankfully we are now away from all this nonsense.
I can name 2. Watford this season and Hull City 2008/09. Admittedly we exploited the same loophole in the PL rules rather than the FL ones, and if I looked properly I could probably find some more who've done the same.
We only had one foreign loan in 2008-09 as far as I can remember, it's hardly the same as Watford having thirteen of them.
We still exploited a loophole in the rules in order to field more loan players than we were supposed to be able to.
We didn't exploit a loophole in the rules, we just followed the rules, as do many clubs. The issue wasn't the ability to sign the odd foreign loan, everyone thought that was no issue, it was only when someone abused the system by signing a complete team of loanees, that it became seen as an issue.
