Back to 7 Subs maybe

[Silent Bob]

As opposed to the financial advantage they have of being able to buy better players in the first place?

No, not as opposed to that, in addition to that.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Could you imagine the path this thread would have followed in the 70s/80s? The NSC of those decades would have been so very different.

"7 subs? Give over, we're lucky to have 1!"

But we only needed the one-Eric Potts

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I find it absolutely hilarious that Pompey are petitioning for the rules to be changed, when I seem to remember that at times this season they didn't even have 5 players on the bench (didn't they refuse to put youth teamers on there?), not to mention the fact that one of the reasons that they got into such a mess was an overly large squad on horrendous wages. They really don't get it, do they?

No no no. They DID have players- reserves/youth teamers- but to have put them on the bench for the sake of filling it would have weakened their claim that they desperately needed to be allowed to sign more players and rendered their (false) "down to the bare bones" pleas ineffective. Just more Pompey bullshit.

 

[Medwayseagull]

Could you imagine the path this thread would have followed in the 70s/80s? The NSC of those decades would have been so very different.

"7 subs? Give over, we're lucky to have 1!"

Or even the 60's and earlier when there were no subs and players carried on playing regardless- broken bones and all !

 

[sten_super]

No no no. They DID have players- reserves/youth teamers- but to have put them on the bench for the sake of filling it would have weakened their claim that they desperately needed to be allowed to sign more players and rendered their (false) "down to the bare bones" pleas ineffective. Just more Pompey bullshit.

Oh I know - I did mention the youth teamers - my point was it is simply yet another demonstration of the hypocrisy of Pompey.

 

[BensGrandad]

The obvious answer is to revert back to alloow 7 subs and clubc use this rule as they see fit either with first team squad players, reserve or youth as is approriate. I am sure there were times when Gus would have used developement squad rather than first team squad players to fill the other two vacancies.

 

[Spider]

If it was necessary for there to be 7 subs to give experience to youngsters then how have we managed up to this point?

The 7 sub thing was only brought in to appease rich clubs who wanted to have lots of highly paid players who wouldn't strop because they weren't even in the matchday squad. Keep it to 5 - more than enough to change a match (which is what substitutes are there for). When the young players are ready they will be one of those 5.

 

[saafend_seagull]

why can't they just have the 7 sub rule, but two players must be youth team products? Hall and JFC!

 

[pauli cee]

No no no. They DID have players- reserves/youth teamers- but to have put them on the bench for the sake of filling it would have weakened their claim that they desperately needed to be allowed to sign more players and rendered their (false) "down to the bare bones" pleas ineffective. Just more Pompey bullshit.

not that i am defending them in any way in the slightest, but wasn't their case for not filling their subs bench, (and also a reason other poorer clubs voted for the 5 subs thing), that even if a player is only warming the bench, the club still have to pay them some part of an appearance fee. that pompey, (and others) couldn't afford to pay?

 

[BensGrandad]

not that i am defending them in any way in the slightest, but wasn't their case for not filling their subs bench, (and also a reason other poorer clubs voted for the 5 subs thing), that even if a player is only warming the bench, the club still have to pay them some part of an appearance fee. that pompey, (and others) couldn't afford to pay?

Wouldnt that be down to how each individual contract is worded. Could a club not include a clause that appearance money is only payable if they are actually required to come on and play.

 

[Perkino]

How about 7 subs but two of them must be under 21's

 

[Seasider78]

We have certainly suffered from that rule this season as often we were left having to leave noone or lua lua out of squad altogether when having the choice of either option to come on would have been fantastic for gus. Agree about JFC and would have no doubt given him some further first team experience.

The timing of the change was not great either as most clubs had assembled their squads with seven in mind.

Would like to see a return to 7 for next season

 

[The Wookiee]

Could you imagine the path this thread would have followed in the 70s/80s? The NSC of those decades would have been so very different.

"7 subs? Give over, we're lucky to have 1!"

I propose we go back to having just 1 sub. Wonder how that would change today's game ?

 

[Kumquat]

I propose we go back to having just 1 sub. Wonder how that would change today's game ?

It would certainly be interesting. Substitutions would be a lot later in the game I suspect - more on the 80 minute mark rather than the 60 minute mark. Ours would definitely be Vincelot!!

 

[pauli cee]

Wouldnt that be down to how each individual contract is worded. Could a club not include a clause that appearance money is only payable if they are actually required to come on and play.

very true, bet pompey wish they had included that!
but also, would it make some contracts less appealing to fringe/youth players?

(sorry, obviously want 7 subs back myself too, just playing devils advocate/curious)

 

[pauli cee]

How about 7 subs but two of them must be under 21's

this, totally.
what could better encourage bringing youth through?
(product of youth team/development squad, rather than just u-21?)

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

very true, bet pompey wish they had included that!
but also, would it make some contracts less appealing to fringe/youth players?

(sorry, obviously want 7 subs back myself too, just playing devils advocate/curious)

Another angle to look at is some of the Pompey youth players were signed from feeder clubs , which haven't been paid so an appearance on the bench and being brought on as a sub could have incurred another fee to add on.

 

[Perkino]

this, totally.
what could better encourage bringing youth through?
(product of youth team/development squad, rather than just u-21?)

There would be too many loop holes around youth team/development squad as a club could argue that any player is in their development squad. An age cap is simpler. If we had 2 spots on the bench for under 21's this season we would have seen different players sitting alongside them than who we saw. If for example Toby and JFC were on the bench then Gus would pick different players to accompany them, equally if Cook and Hall were there we would have seen a few more attacking selections

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

We should go back to the old days of no substitutes. Bunch of winps, players these days.

And while we're about, go back to the 10 minute half time. How long can it take a player to have a fag and a cough and a spit?

 

[danish seagull]

Seemed a crazy decision in the first place. Surely every team can find 7 subs even if they are youth teamers. The experience of that has got to be a key part of any young players development.

That's what I thought when they first reduced it. All clubs will have someone to stick on the bench.