Libertine Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 The Football League have today voted to reduce the amount of subs named from 7 back to 5. Due to financial reasons I think. Guess they pay out appearance bonuses when they're just in the squad or something?
Leicester_Loyal Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 The Football League has apparently voted to reduce the number of substitutes back down to 5.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11688_7052348,00.html The meeting was held at the King Power Stadium. Its because we are massive.
JimmyK Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 It irritates me that I'll have to start putting thought back into the subs on Football Manager.
AjcW Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11688_7052348,00.html The meeting was held at the King Power Stadium. Its because we are massive. Central/Have Fancy Facilities.
sdb Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 Bummer for us and our big squad. Sven won't be happy i'd imagine, and a blow for the likes of Schlupp.
BrummieFOX Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 Have no link at the mo but just announced on sky sports that Football League teams will now only be able to name 5 substitutes instead of 7 which has been in place the last few season. How do you think this may affect Sven's capability of keeping our very large squad happy? It surely isn't a good thing for us and I can't really see the positive in it for any football league team. Perhaps other than Portsmouth who couldn't fill their bench anyway.
Guest MattP Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 I like it, no need whatsoever for seven substitutes at all. Hopefully we can see squads trimmed in the near future as well across all divisions.
accessory Posted 21 July 2011 Posted 21 July 2011 Have no link at the mo but just announced on sky sports that Football League teams will now only be able to name 5 substitutes instead of 7 which has been in place the last few season. How do you think this may affect Sven's capability of keeping our very large squad happy? It surely isn't a good thing for us and I can't really see the positive in it for any football league team. Perhaps other than Portsmouth who couldn't fill their bench anyway. A few teams in the lower divisions, with rather smaller squads than ours, were struggling to fill their bench whenever they had injuries or suspensions. Seems strange that the league have waited until two weeks before the start of the season before making this decision. They could have done this last month at their AGM.
Fox92 Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 There wasn't any need for 7 really, because we only use 3. However, it did give us more options. For example, Sven is going to waste his time putting a goalkeeper on the bench, so that leaves 4 outfield players. A defender and full back? A midfielder and a winger? No striker. Its quite hard picking only 5, with 7, you could have a goalkeeper, defender, full back, midfielder, winger and two strikers = more option.
davieG Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 There wasn't any need for 7 really, because we only use 3. However, it did give us more options. For example, Sven is going to waste his time putting a goalkeeper on the bench, so that leaves 4 outfield players. A defender and full back? A midfielder and a winger? No striker. Its quite hard picking only 5, with 7, you could have a goalkeeper, defender, full back, midfielder, winger and two strikers = more option. Heavens how did managers cope when there were less than 5 subs and when they were just for injuries, maybe they had to be better managers selecting the correct team from the off. Fans have been spoilt with all these subs.
FoxesFan123 Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 If this decision was made earlier, would we have had to pay more to get St Ledger in?
Fox92 Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 Heavens how did managers cope when there were less than 5 subs and when they were just for injuries, maybe they had to be better managers selecting the correct team from the off. Fans have been spoilt with all these subs. I was referring to the difference between five and seven. I know teams used to have less than five subs, you arn't the only one that has been following the club since those times.
davieG Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 I was referring to the difference between five and seven. I know teams used to have less than five subs, you arn't the only one that has been following the club since those times. I know you know no need to get the hump. My point still stands, managers will just have to make sure they make a better job of picking the correct team from the off with two less to choose from.
ajthefox Posted 22 July 2011 Posted 22 July 2011 Meh, the words mountain and molehill spring to mind.
Fox92 Posted 23 July 2011 Posted 23 July 2011 I know you know no need to get the hump. My point still stands, managers will just have to make sure they make a better job of picking the correct team from the off with two less to choose from. Ok, and yes, they will. I was making a point about it being harder to choose...
Finnegan Posted 23 July 2011 Posted 23 July 2011 I'm on my own then am I? Stupid system to begin with. Name twenty odd, or twenty two, or limit it to the size of the smallest squad in the league. Who gives a toss? Manager can still only bring three on. Let's him be as flexible as he needs to be and gives more hope to fringe youngsters who may get a game in certain circumstances (ie, leading comfortably.)
MC Prussian Posted 23 July 2011 Posted 23 July 2011 Makes you wonder how teams were able to compete when there were no subs allowed at all.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.