Jump to content
davieG

Premier League clubs vote against five substitute proposal for next season

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Edited by Fox92
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...?

Edited by DennisNedry
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 👍

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...