5 subs instead of 7

[Colorado Gull]

http://www.torquayunited.com/page/News/ ... 09,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apologies if this has been stated anywhere else, but I saw this on Sky Sports News that football league clubs’ subs are being reduced to make it 5 subs instead of 7 in league games and the JPT. However in the FA Cup and League Cup football league clubs have the usual 7.

What do we think about this then? Good idea?

[Trojan 67]

5 subs : goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, two forwards.

7 subs : goalkeeper, two defenders, two midfielders, two forwards.

TUFC in reality, 5 subs : goalkeeper, utility defender, utility defender/midfielder, utility midfielder/striker, striker.

[Jeff]

Maybe with this late change in the rules, it could work in our favour in the sense that we have a number of utility players and could cover most eventualities within our 5.

And a couple of thoughts that did cross my mind - I wonder whether Buckle will go back to 5 outfield players on the bench like he did with us in our first BSP season, even though he now has an injury prone Bevan as first choice? And also, with Buckle having splashed the cash he's going to have a job on his hands now that 2 additional players won't even make the matchday squad.

No longer is it such an advantage to have a massive squad.

[leetufc]

I preferred seven subs, just because it gives a team more options. If two defenders have to go off injured, with seven subs, your likely to have two players who can play there, but with only five it's probable someone playing out of position. Not sure I really believe the stuff about doing it for finances. Most teams will operate a squad larger than 18 so could fill all the subs spots, whilst there is no obligation to name seven subs so even if a team was short on players it's not a massive issue.

That said though, doubt it will make too much difference, we've operated with five subs before and clearly not many were fans of the seven sub system. Just as long as we don't go back to the days of three subs!

[Yellow4life]

i feel this denies the youngsters an opportunity for first team action(warm ups etc)

i dont see why they are changing back

[Colorado Gull]

This is from Sky Sports News http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,12040_7052368,0.html

The Football League had followed the Premier League in introducing substitute benches of seven players, but clubs frequently struggled to muster 18 players for a matchday squad when injuries hit.

With clubs struggling to fund large squads, it was expected this would be an issue again this season.

"This was felt to be a sensible and prudent step given the financial challenges facing many football clubs and the commitment made earlier this summer to adopt UEFA's Financial Fair Play framework," a league spokesman said.

Teams will still be permitted seven named substitutes in the Carling Cup and FA Cup, but the number will be five in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy.

[Modgull]

A sensible development given the financial problems in much of the game

[Bigman]

Personally I think that if a team can't afford 7 subs they won't have 7 subs, or they'll fill the last 2 slots with youngsters, thus giving them valuable experience. I don't think clubs will drastically overspend on 2 extra reserve players, especially when the number of subs they can make doesn't change.

It also seems like a stupid time to announce the rule change, after a lot of transfers and contracts have been sorted out, so if clubs were going to spend more to have a full bench of quality players they'll most likely have already done it.

Although I'm sure the football league didn't ask their members, I would've thought clubs would prefer to have 7 subs to give them more options (e.g. in the event of multiple injuries) and allow for youngsters to be involved in the matchday squad and potentially get playing time. Surely giving Saul Halpin 10 minutes when we're 3-0 up would be a good experience for him, whereas he's unlikely to be our first choice sub striker at the moment, and thus not make the match day 16 to have a chance of getting those 10 minutes.

I know it would never be implimented, but as a compromise could they not have a rule that subs 6 & 7 have to be under 21? This would also be in keeping with the recent changes in squad composition rules.

I can understand why they've made the change, and it does give clubs with a smaller squad more of a chance against the big spenders (having a first 16 of similar quality will be easier than an equal first 18), but I don't think it will save a lot money and I don't think it's so awful if the odd team occassionally doesn't have a full bench.

[PhilGull]

As far as I am aware this was a decision made by the Football League, therefore a decision made by the 72 Chairman of each club. This is what the majority of clubs want, this is what they get. I don't really understand it myself. I just can't see how 2 subs bench places is going to make a difference to finances.

[tufcbrett]

As far as I am aware this was a decision made by the Football League, therefore a decision made by the 72 Chairman of each club. This is what the majority of clubs want, this is what they get. I don't really understand it myself. I just can't see how 2 subs bench places is going to make a difference to finances.

With clubs ive worked with and im sure Torquay will be the same, all the first team squad travels to the game Home or Away and then the match day sqaud will play and sit on the bench and the rest sit out. Teams go up on a coach on away games so i dont see how they save money from that as im sure they all go but even if they didnt you wouldnt save money by not send two extra up. Plus each player gets there wage if they play or not so i dont think its a money thing.

Tbh i really have no idea why they done this. They did it to add subs, so there could be more cover and now they want less.

[brucie]

This will surely favour us over a club like Bristol Rovers who have a far bigger squad. Could also lead to players being discontented as they are not involved in first team action so really should be welcomed by us. In fact we could dispense with having Rice on the bench so its a really great idea.

[brucie]

In fact this could lead to Mcphee not getting on the bench either. Fatntastic news.

[tommyg]

In fact this could lead to Mcphee not getting on the bench either. Fatntastic news.

I actually think Ling will prefer McPhee on the bench over say Lathrope, because he is versatile and can cover a few positions which becomes more important when you can only name five subs. With a squad of 23 (when Atieno signs) and Ling yet to use the loan market, there are going to be a fair few players disappointed each week. The younger ones will proably be loaned out. I see Palmer is being linked with Truro.