itzdrk Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 1 hour ago, RiG said: The SPFL have just announced that teams can make five substitutions in games this season except for matches in the Championship because only 3 teams responded in favour to the proposal put forward. https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-use-of-five-subs Happy with that, surprised those in League One and Two went for it, they often don't even name 5 subs and one is a goalkeeper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 1 hour ago, renton said: That's fairly bizarre. It also doesn't seem very smart for Leagues One and Two, as the ability to afford 20 players for a game will be thrown back at clubs claiming that they need financial support to get through the season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Good article here on the model in English non-league football, though the option to work this way is more attractive the smaller you are (the club not the supporter!). https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/blueprint-scottish-football-can-follow-22767874 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeodhasXD Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 As noted above most of the Championship clubs don't have massive squads. Last season we had games with 3 on the bench. I'm sure this 5 substitute thing was introduced because of the fixture pile-up of European, Domestic and National team football to take the strain off players. Don't see any argument for changing our regulations in the championship with a 27 game season. Why would we help Hearts? League 1 and 2 doing it seems bizarre too but each to their own... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro Sham Bo Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 1 hour ago, renton said: That's fairly bizarre. What's bizarre is that Hearts haven't released a statement condemning the result yet. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 I'm sure this 5 substitute thing was introduced because of the fixture pile-up of European, Domestic and National team football to take the strain off players. Other countries were using five subs two seasons ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeodhasXD Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 30 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said: Other countries were using five subs two seasons ago. Not in any Uefa competitions they weren't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 It also doesn't seem very smart for Leagues One and Two, as the ability to afford 20 players for a game will be thrown back at clubs claiming that they need financial support to get through the season.They don't have to name 9 subs, they just have the option to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 4 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said: It also doesn't seem very smart for Leagues One and Two, as the ability to afford 20 players for a game will be thrown back at clubs claiming that they need financial support to get through the season. By that argument, teams seeking support should probably be playing with eight players to show their poverty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 6 hours ago, RandomGuy. said: Its not. 5 subs is a massive advantage for larger clubs, as clubs in the top flight are discovering. 6 hours ago, renton said: No, the fact that the championship decided against it is what I find bizarre. Which will be at least part of the reason Championship clubs voted against it though. What's utterly bizarre is that lower division clubs voted it through. I can't see the sense at all. 3 hours ago, craigkillie said: They don't have to name 9 subs, they just have the option to. True but all that does is play into the hands of the bigger, wealthier clubs who have bigger squads. Whilst tempting managers to list players anyway since they can. With potential ramifications for appearance fees and bonuses as well. It's utterly needless. The point was originally in theory to allow more player rotation in a hectic come back from lockdown for the English sides in middle of summer heat. We're discussing a 27 game season in the normal winter. I see no need for it at all. I don't even think the Premiership should be doing it but they did at least start back earlier. It's bad enough the rest of us will potentially have the option to do it in the Betfred. 1 hour ago, TxRover said: By that argument, teams seeking support should probably be playing with eight players to show their poverty. Don't be ridiculous. That's not remotely the same logic. It's a game for 11 people. Nobody is going to "plead poverty" by naming short handed teams. That's not remotely the same as consciously voting for a situation that encourages more players and increased costs whilst bleating to the Govt that they can't afford to play. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 6 hours ago, renton said: No, the fact that the championship decided against it is what I find bizarre. The fact the other 3 went for it is bizarre. We play Celtic on Sunday. They'll have a bench full of Internationals, and be able to have the likes of Ntcham, Turnbull, Rogic, Griffiths and Klimala all come off the bench if theyre struggling in attack. They can change their system multiple times if they wish. Saints have about 2 attacking subs of any use. I've no idea why Premiership clubs went for it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 6 hours ago, renton said: No, the fact that the championship decided against it is what I find bizarre. It's not remotely bizarre. A majority of clubs at any level voting for it is far more bizarre. All this can do is further exaggerate the impact of differences in resources. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: The fact the other 3 went for it is bizarre. We play Celtic on Sunday. They'll have a bench full of Internationals, and be able to have the likes of Ntcham, Turnbull, Rogic, Griffiths and Klimala all come off the bench if theyre struggling in attack. They can change their system multiple times if they wish. Saints have about 2 attacking subs of any use. I've no idea why Premiership clubs went for it. I remember a discussion about it on Sportsound a few weeks ago, that had me seething. They nearly all thought it was a great idea that would be welcomed by all clubs. Neil McCann speaking as a recent, lousy, manager was excited by the capacity a manager would have to change things. Everyone seemed to see the impact on each club in isolation, as if ignoring the fact that the other teams could do it too, and some would be far better placed to exploit it. It's the same logic that thinks clubs should be wishing the OF well in CL qualifiers because they might get £100k or something from it, ignoring that a side they share a division with stands to get over £20m. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzoboys Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 Why not allow the 5 subs to be used during a game but from the same number of players on the bench as last year. Increasing the sub-bench just increases squad sizes and favours the OF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Terrace Gazza Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 Massive advantage to Thistle and Falkirk in league one. I’m surprised they voted for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGdavieT Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 I believe one of the main reasons we went with 3 is because it means only 3 subs in the playoffs. 5 would be an advantage (presumably,) for the premiership club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 Not in any Uefa competitions they weren't. So? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_M Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 1 hour ago, BIGdavieT said: I believe one of the main reasons we went with 3 is because it means only 3 subs in the playoffs. 5 would be an advantage (presumably,) for the premiership club. There was a separate vote on the Playoffs, that involved all clubs, so that had no impact on the decision for the Championship. It required 9 Premiership, 8 Championship and 15 clubs from L1/2 for it to pass. It got 8, 4, 19 so also failed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 There was a separate vote on the Playoffs, that involved all clubs, so that had no impact on the decision for the Championship. It required 9 Premiership, 8 Championship and 15 clubs from L1/2 for it to pass. It got 8, 4, 19 so also failed.Interesting that one team who didn't vote for 5 subs in the Championship were happy for it in the playoffs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerafc Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 3 subs is fine. 5 was ok when they returned as playing a lot of games but long term keep it at 3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.