Only 5 substitutes allowed next season.......

[Wycombe Royal]

Football League clubs have voted to reduce the number of substitutes that can be named on the teamsheet for matches in the npower Football League from 7 to 5.

The vote was taken at an EGM at Leicester City's King Power Stadium.

A Football League spokesman said: "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."

Clubs will still be permitted to name 7 substitutes in the Carling Cup and FA Cup and 5 in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20110721/league-clubs-to-reduce-subs-from-7-to-5_2293334_2398424


And also no multiball next season either........

[CayeneMatt]

multiball seems a bit odd. Thats gonna slow the game down big time.... which might suit our defence.

[andrew1957]

Both stupid backward steps IMO.

The idea of having more subs was to give a greater chance of young players being selected for an oportunity on the bench. RFC have included young players in match day squads on this basis.

Why should clubs not be allowed to use multiball if they want to - as they can now.

[royalsroyalsroyals92]

Personally i liked bringing 7 subs... it meant their was a little extra room in the squad, especially for youth who were able to absorb and experience the match day atmosphere. not a fan of the rule change and where multiball is concerned, i know some teams screw it up but its still annoying that its gone as it will make the game alot slower

[Wimb]

Both awful decisions in my book.

The reduction of substitutes makes absolutely no sense to me as what harm has it been doing the clubs? sure sometimes you haven't enough players to fill a bench with injuries and what not but I hardly think anyone has been disadvantaged by it

The multi-ball I can kind of understand because certain teams have been accused of manipulating it to suit them when they are at home but even so pathetic backward step from the FL, meaning fans get to see less of the ball in play and more of the ball bouncing around the stands.

.... I feel a ranty article on TTE coming on

[Wycombe Royal]

At the end of the day it is the clubs who have voted for this. I would guess the bigger clubs with better academies were against the number of subs being reduced (like us for example) whereas many of the L1 and L2 clubs probably struggle to put out 7 subs at times. It is also more disruptive to a club like Leicester, West Ham, Birmingham, etc who have large experienced squads as they can't put as many of them on the bench. Could lead to some players leaving.......

Multiball is a strange one - we use it to great effect but some clubs have always been against it. I would guess that some clubs see it as an unfair system that can be used by the home team to their advantage (ie giving the ball back quicker to home players) and are therefore against it.

[andrew1957]

OS confirms that RFC voted against both changes.

Small clubs won the day by the sound of it.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I think the resonong on the subs questiuon was that it levels the playing field between rich and poor.

A small/poor club might have a couple of kids as subs 6 & 7, whilst a richer one might have a couple of first-teamers there because they have a bigger squad.

It also, presumably, lowers travelling and accomodation costs for away games by two people.

[RoyalBlue]

Multiball is a strange one - we use it to great effect but some clubs have always been against it. I would guess that some clubs see it as an unfair system that can be used by the home team to their advantage (ie giving the ball back quicker to home players) and are therefore against it.

I think you're probably right. However, when the ball now goes in the stands, we the supporters can play the single ball system to our advantage far more than the official ball boys/girls ever did with the multi-ball system!

Above all multi-ball worked in the best interests of the paying supporters who got to see the ball in play for far longer than some of the ludicrously low stats we have seen for single ball. But why bother about the best interests of the paying supporter! Better still, why not have the ref insist that the player delays taking the throw for long enough to Sky to slip in a 30 second Ad!

[RoyalBlue]

I think the resonong on the subs questiuon was that it levels the playing field between rich and poor.

A small/poor club might have a couple of kids as subs 6 & 7, whilst a richer one might have a couple of first-teamers there because they have a bigger squad.

It also, presumably, lowers travelling and accomodation costs for away games by two people.

Maybe they should have looked at changing the rules so that subs 6&7 had to be below a certain age (football seems able to ignore discrimination laws). I know the rich clubs could have fielded expensive super kids at 6&7 but it wouldn't happen that often and would offer more opportunity to younger players.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Multiball is a strange one - we use it to great effect but some clubs have always been against it. I would guess that some clubs see it as an unfair system that can be used by the home team to their advantage (ie giving the ball back quicker to home players) and are therefore against it.

I think you're probably right. However, when the ball now goes in the stands, we the supporters can play the single ball system to our advantage far more than the official ball boys/girls ever did with the multi-ball system!

Above all multi-ball worked in the best interests of the paying supporters who got to see the ball in play for far longer than some of the ludicrously low stats we have seen for single ball. But why bother about the best interests of the paying supporter! Better still, why not have the ref insist that the player delays taking the throw for long enough to Sky to slip in a 30 second Ad!

Yes, ISTR the FL did mention having a lot of complaints about teams misusing it to their advantage.

[Victor Meldrew]

I think the resonong on the subs questiuon was that it levels the playing field between rich and poor.

A small/poor club might have a couple of kids as subs 6 & 7, whilst a richer one might have a couple of first-teamers there because they have a bigger squad.

It also, presumably, lowers travelling and accomodation costs for away games by two people.

Also it probably lowers the cost for appearance money although IIRC both Pardew and Coppell were more inclined to have senior pros on the bench so that they did enjoy the benefit of extra money.
Personally I have always thought that five is more than enough especially when you think it is not so long ago when there were:-
none-a bit daft
one-not enough
three-probably enough

[Svlad Cjelli]

And it's been mentioned that it makes some changing rooms and some benches like the black hole of Calcutta.

[Ian Royal]

No problem with the subs. Disagree with multiball. It slllloooooowwwwssssss tttttttttthhhhhheeeeeee gggggggaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmeee dooooowwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnn too much with just the one. So frustrating.

[soggy biscuit]

I like the way multiball speeded up a game but so many clubs didn't implement it properly and therefore had it taken away from them which was just getting silly.

Reading were reported on more than one occasion for not using the multiball system properly (one of which I reported on here at the time the complaint went in)

[The Surgeon of Crowthorne]

The multi ball system did piss me off on occassions when a second ball found its way onto the pitch when another was in play through a ball just bouncing back from the stands, a ball boy not catching one thrown from the stands, opposition fans deliberately holding onto the ball then waiting for the game to re-start (if they were ahead or drawing at the time) or the opposition bench doing the same.
The subs rule change just seems daft - couldn't a system be devised where clubs could agree the number before each game? If no agreement then the number is fixed at the lower amount?

[Z175]

OS confirms that RFC voted against both changes.

Small clubs won the day by the sound of it.

Of course we voted against bringing in 7 subs when we were in the Prem.

I think we would still be morally opposed due to finance, but have a huge and good academy so clearly want them on the bench.

[Z175]

multiball seems a bit odd. Thats gonna slow the game down big time.... which might suit our defence.

Also those two unused Subs can also not be used to throw the ball back on. Should have banned one or the other, but both is ridiculous.

[rhroyal]

When the Premier League increased the number of subs from 5 to 7, we voted against the change. Coppell stated that it allowed bigger clubs with bigger budgets to stockpile the better players and keep 4 or 5 match winners on the bench.

I guess the same could apply at this level. That's potentially even more damaging down here, as you would expect the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea etc to have the necessary budget. Down here, how many clubs can honestly afford to have a big squad loaded with that much quality (and wages)? I imagine that's the logic behind this change.

On the flip side, it works against clubs like ours. We have invested heavily in the academy over the past 10-15 years. For 2-3 years it's been bearing fruit, it would be our just reward to have extra options on the bench which have come out of it. It would be great for Obita to get his chance on there and be given the occasional run out. Less likely now.

As for multi-ball, why? We've never had an unfair advantage. We've understood the system at the Mad Stad to great effect. Any club could replicate that at their own place if they want; add a little more to the home advantage of pitch and fans. Instead they don't, they cry boo-hoo when we move too quickly for them at our place.

[Big Foot]

Can't wait for us to be defending a 1 goal lead with 5 minutes to go and to keep ahold of the match ball in the crowd to waste time