The first thing that springs to mind.... is our bench will comprise- -keeper -defender -2 midfielders -striker. With us likely to play JET from Gladiators just off Chopra, would I be right in saying Scotland / Ellington / Priskin are all playing for ONE spot on the bench !? This is going to have a knock on effect at many clubs. Players could find themselves not even in squads ! Also - this WILL effect youth players - clubs are less likely to give youth a go I'd imagine Thoughts ?
Much prefer having seven subs: makes Football Manager easier! I'd personally be inclined to drop the 'keeper from the bench, but that would only be to put a winger or a full-back in (assuming we have CB and CM on there already), so it doesn't address the Scotland/Ellington/Priskin problem. Ellington will probably get on the bench for us, but it does mean more wasted wages. As for youth, I can't imagine many clubs being willing to risk putting a young lad on the bench unless he's A) exceptional or B) out of options. I think it's a terrible idea, but apparently the clubs passed it unanimously, so maybe the clubs have better ideas.
Exactly, it would give potentially 1 or 2 youngsters the match day atmosphere experience at worst ! The only positive I can see is many clubs being MUCH more willing to do transfers as they wouldn't want to waste wages. For this reason alone, there could be MANY MANY late deals..... could be wrong !?
Yes absolutely - it's because of the cost of having a larger squad of players. It was felt that some teams have been struggling to name 18 so in the football league the clubs agreed to go down to 5, which means that everyone can save a bit on wages. It doesn't necessarily mean there won't be two strikers on the bench - we might start out with 4-5-1 knowing we can go more attacking later in the game - and it means we'll see more players swap around the pitch. I take your point about the three strikers though and I think Scotland and Priskin are surplus to requirements - although you never know who's going to be called upon and seize their chance.
Thanks Hamps. Makes sense I suppose, though I wonder how many times we'll see an outfield player between the sticks as there was no keeper on the bench?
seems like a strange decision to cut the number of substitutes. i thought the whole point of it was to give youngsters the chance to get a feel of the match day experience and maybe get some match time? surely it will make it harder for young talent to come through the system if they've got less places to fight for? its a backwards step in my opinion. of course there are financial reasons, and i'm all for clubs getting their house in order, but shouldn't there be the option to name 7 subs if you can/want to? if you then name 5, thats up to your manager or if finances permit it.
Allowing the 7 gives the richer clubs an advantage. If you're a League Two side and have two squad players on a grand each that's £100k you've saved over the season. For a side like Town with squad players on £10k you're talking about a million quid. It's not going to stop promising kids from getting a chance - it will stop clubs having to fill the bench with kids who aren't ready to be there.
thats a good point yorkie, not thought about it that way still think it is an unnecessary change personally but it has pros and cons.
It's all about the money. Not only wages but hotel accommodation, travel etc etc.... This is definately needed. Priskin. maybe Scotland and some of the youngsters will go out on loan or leave....
