davieG Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-clubs-vote-against-22479977 Premier League clubs have voted to revert to a maximum of three substitutes for next season. Clubs voted 11-9 against the proposals to stick with five substitutes for the 2020/21 season after the rule was brought in during Project Restart to help clubs get through the crowded fixture schedule. There was also a vote - which ended 10v10 - to extend match day squads to 20 players but that will also revert to seven players on the bench for next season. The Premier League meeting held this morning needed a majority of 14-6 to get any proposal voted through after law makers IFAB made the five subs rule available for all leagues next season. It is understood the big clubs were in favour of five subs but the smaller teams against it because they feel it gave their opponents too much of an advantage as they have bigger and more strength in depth. The five subs was brought in post-lockdown and clubs like Manchester City and Manchester United were able to bring on superstar substitutes to win a game. Crystal Palace boss Roy Hodgson revealed last month that they originally voted in favour of five subs - it was brought in with a majority of 16-4 - but would vote against it this time. It is believed all three promoted clubs - Leeds, West Brom and Fulham - voted against five subs. Certain managers have bemoaned the amount of subs claiming it favours the top clubs (Image: Pool via REUTERS) That was expected while the clubs were given details on the new-look VAR for next season when FIFA will take overall control and that should give the green light for referees to check pitch side monitors. A discussion was also started on the possibility of curtailment for next season to at least have a plan in place should there be a second spike though that will not be agreed on before the next meeting. Mirror Sport also revealed discussions between the clubs to try and offer some financial support to EFL clubs while also discussing the fixture schedule and dates for the Carabao Cup.
RoboFox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 Ah, the delicious salty tears of the "Big Six" and their Sky Sports / TalkSport fan clubs.
whetstonefox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 Be interesting how we voted , if I was a betting man I’d say we’d have voted for it, I’m sure we’ve tended to vote with the big clubs on stuff.
Guest Lcfc82 Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 Have the clubs voted VAR back in or is it here for good now ?
mozartfox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 4 minutes ago, Spudulike said: Get rid of drinks breaks as well. And the wheeling on of covers at half time if it is raining.
twister Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 Great news I am very pleased by this, if lads cant play for 90 minutes they should not be out there playing. If they had stuck with five we would never have seen it reversed again well done everyone involved
Finnegan Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 11 minutes ago, Spudulike said: Get rid of drinks breaks as well. That's a FIFA mandate when playing at certain times of the year, isn't it? It was brought in for summer tournaments no? I assume that'll go when it's September and it's pissing it down.
StanSP Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 14 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said: Have the clubs voted VAR back in or is it here for good now ? Here for good.
DerbyshireFox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 11-9 was closer than I would’ve expected but 100% the right decision
dayday Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 We could have 7 subs, Rodgers would still probably bring the wrong players on
Hoopla10 Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 48 minutes ago, Finnegan said: That's a FIFA mandate when playing at certain times of the year, isn't it? It was brought in for summer tournaments no? I assume that'll go when it's September and it's pissing it down. I thought that was predicated more by temperature than a blanket seasonal thing. I remember in Brazil (2014 WC) they implemented water breaks if the temp hit 32C. A good half way into the restart they should have stopped water breaks, especially in evening kick-offs. It wasn't about hydrating, it was about team talks. If you were in control or had momentum it destroyed it and so often flipped the advantage back to the opposing team. I can also see SKY/Virgin would have loved to keep it as a proper fixture so they can eventually slip an advert or two in. The next thing we'll find it like half of America's sports where everything stops every couple of minutes so they can go to commercials. I'm glad they voted down the 5 sub thing as well. It made sense for the restart but there's no reason for it to continue going into the new season. It clearly favors the big squads with the big money.
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 37 minutes ago, DerbyshireFox said: 11-9 was closer than I would’ve expected but 100% the right decision Wow that is close, I’d of thought only the top 4 would of voted yes as it’s a huge advantage for them with the strength in depth they have, the rest I’d of expected to vote no.
DerbyshireFox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 1 minute ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said: Wow that is close, I’d of thought only the top 4 would of voted yes as it’s a huge advantage for them with the strength in depth they have, the rest I’d of expected to vote no. I wouldn’t be surprised if we voted for, not that any of us would want it, but with Europe next season, shorter pre season, and the injuries we had, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility. Wolves maybe given the length of their season? I was expecting 14-6 but at least it didn’t go through
GingerrrFox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 I personally think 5 subs is a bad idea but I do like the idea of match day squads being brought up to 20. Having 9 players on the bench gives younger players the opportunity to be on the bench and make an impact if the manager decides to use one of his 3 subs on them.
Hoopla10 Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 19 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said: I personally think 5 subs is a bad idea but I do like the idea of match day squads being brought up to 20. Having 9 players on the bench gives younger players the opportunity to be on the bench and make an impact if the manager decides to use one of his 3 subs on them. I'd be curious how they'd also feel spending most (if not all) season not getting off the bench. That's got to be kind of demoralizing, right? Maybe not.
Fox92 Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 1 hour ago, DerbyshireFox said: 11-9 was closer than I would’ve expected but 100% the right decision 100% is the right decision. Be interested who the 9 clubs are..
HighPeakFox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 3 minutes ago, Fox92 said: 100% is the right decision. Be interested who the 9 clubs are.. I think I could guess the majority...
Dr Marco Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 52 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said: Wow that is close, I’d of thought only the top 4 would of voted yes as it’s a huge advantage for them with the strength in depth they have, the rest I’d of expected to vote no. this
Fox of WA Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 1 hour ago, Hoopla10 said: I thought that was predicated more by temperature than a blanket seasonal thing. I remember in Brazil (2014 WC) they implemented water breaks if the temp hit 32C. A good half way into the restart they should have stopped water breaks, especially in evening kick-offs. It wasn't about hydrating, it was about team talks. If you were in control or had momentum it destroyed it and so often flipped the advantage back to the opposing team. I can also see SKY/Virgin would have loved to keep it as a proper fixture so they can eventually slip an advert or two in. The next thing we'll find it like half of America's sports where everything stops every couple of minutes so they can go to commercials. I'm glad they voted down the 5 sub thing as well. It made sense for the restart but there's no reason for it to continue going into the new season. It clearly favors the big squads with the big money. As an American I can say this would have absolutely been the worst possible development. But I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't already been tried.
DennisNedry Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 Everybody is correctly saying that this would favour the big clubs. Nobody seems to be talking about the big increase in time wasting (on top of what we already have) this would have created...?
Hollyfox Posted 6 August 2020 Posted 6 August 2020 I would stop any tactical substitutions being made after 90 mins is up. It's so feckin annoying, disrupts any momentum in the game and encourages even more time wasting. Just my opinion 👍
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.