Number of Substitutes in the Champioship

[brockmyster]

I guess the intention is for Championship teams to require smaller squads thus forcing them to manage the finances better!

I'm also guessing that the doesnt apply to the Prem or cup competitions due to they feel we have no chance of winning either? ;-)

If they wanted to keep finances down they could say that on a 7 man bench two must be current youth potentials or something that would keep costs down but also allow young players the chance to grow.

Need the 7 man bench though imo

Edit: Well it seems that someone else had already put that, should probably read through the thread first

[LCFC_FAN_1995]

Five Is stupid, I think they did it to make clubs like Portsmouth feel better.

And they couldn't still always get 5 subs!

[Guest parky0607]

It's causing me a nightmare on my Fifa managerial career

[unreachable]

The number of substitutes may be reviewed at the Football League's Annual General Meeting in June.

[Number 6]

I do think 7 subs is a better system but then I do love me an outfield player in goal (excluding Windass).

[Dan]

I heard the rule was introduced because some teams couldn't name a full bench.

Which I find completely laughable. Absolutely laughable. Lets change the rules to suit clubs who can't work with extremely simple regulations, they could use U18's for starters.

Seems a very, very dubious one to me. Re-introduce 7 subs immediately.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

I thought it was introduced because League One and Two (and possibly some Championship) clubs were struggling to pay the appearance fees of 18 players. Personally, I never saw it as a big deal, five substitutes is plenty. The problem was the Football League lowered the limit just before the start of the season, when we'd already amassed a huge squad. Ideally, if they were going to do this, it should have been introduced next season.

[Captain...]

I thought it was introduced because League One and Two (and possibly some Championship) clubs were struggling to pay the appearance fees of 18 players. Personally, I never saw it as a big deal, five substitutes is plenty. The problem was the Football League lowered the limit just before the start of the season, when we'd already amassed a huge squad. Ideally, if they were going to do this, it should have been introduced next season.

I agree with the last part, it did seem to come in very late in the season.

If it is about money then it does seem stupid, I assume that appearance fees are negotiated by the club, and were done so in full knowledge of there being 7 subs on the bench, I don't see why all clubs should be punished for other clubs financial mismanagement.

If you can't afford to have 7 subs on the bench then don't, in fact play with no subs, that will save you loads of money.

[davieG]

Or you could have a 1st team squad with no appearance bonuses, if you're in the squad you get paid your normal salary. Goal and clean sheet bonuses if they do exist should be paid to the whole squad, after all it's a team game.

[Captain...]

Or you could have a 1st team squad with no appearance bonuses, if you're in the squad you get paid your normal salary. Goal and clean sheet bonuses if they do exist should be paid to the whole squad, after all it's a team game.

Careful you will be accused of being a socialist with that sort of view point (one which I whole heartedly agree with, except it should go to the starting 11 and used subs, proportional to how much time they spent on the pitch, not the whole squad, and immediately lost for a red card).

[davieG]

Careful you will be accused of being a socialist with that sort of view point (one which I whole heartedly agree with, except it should go to the starting 11 and used subs, proportional to how much time they spent on the pitch, not the whole squad, and immediately lost for a red card).

As no one should be guaranteed a start all players are signed as squad players therefore beyond their agreed salary should all share the bonuses.

With your version a player who's not missed a game but is subsequently rested against a weaker team sees them go out and slaughter them 6-0 ( I dream) only to find he gets none of the bonuses, hardly fair and conducive to the team ethic also I suspect you'll get players saying they're fit when they're not just to get the bonus.

Bonus can be very divisive, witness the current big business leader bonuses so it's important to make sure that they not only motivate individuals but the team as a whole, one hopes the desire to play will overcome anyone happy to just pick up the bonus and not play but then that comes down to careful recruitment.

[Captain...]

As no one should be guaranteed a start all players are signed as squad players therefore beyond their agreed salary should all share the bonuses.

With your version a player who's not missed a game but is subsequently rested against a weaker team sees them go out and slaughter them 6-0 ( I dream) only to find he gets none of the bonuses, hardly fair and conducive to the team ethic also I suspect you'll get players saying they're fit when they're not just to get the bonus.

Bonus can be very divisive, witness the current big business leader bonuses so it's important to make sure that they not only motivate individuals but the team as a whole, one hopes the desire to play will overcome anyone happy to just pick up the bonus and not play but then that comes down to careful recruitment.

[davieG]

That might be appropriate if I'd said they should all receive the same basic salary, hmmm there's a thought