Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jake Caskey
- Thread starter Hillian1
- Start date
Of course, and I'm sure he will. But previously there would have been probably two subs places and he most likely would have taken up the second - there would be less risk including him as other senior CM squad members could be used in an emergency/to change the game, whilst the option would have been there to use him whenever we were comfortable and the time was right. Now he will have to fight for a place against some very good players, which is a huge ask for a 17 year old. I'm not saying he won't be able to, but there's not many 17 year olds who could hold down a squad place at this level.
Colossal Squid
Returning video tapes
But what is the reasoning behind some clubs NOT wanting 7 subs? Is it purely on the basis that it means squads can be slightly smaller, thus saving on wages?
It was a vote by the chairmen of all football league clubs. I'm sure the FA could have stepped in and stopped it if they'd wanted to though.
The thing that I'm most worried about is losing Caskey to a bigger team. If the choice was to play in Brighton Reserves, or for example Aston Villa's Reserves, it wouldn't be a surprise to see him move. Whereas if he has a chance of making our first team, he is more likely to stay - which I think he said as much when he decided to sign for us on his 17th birthday.
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
I agree - the subs rule makes it harder for nhiom but I would think Gus has had a word with Jake before coming out with public comments about him having no chance etc!If Jake is good enough, he will be in the squad! Gus is an artist at smoke & mirrors.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
Hope so-I did not agree at all....maybe if that's what's required to give Jake that final push to get into contention or get him in the Limelight re a loan move so be it,but if not then i find it appalling tbh.
BensGrandad
New member
Wasnt it on another thread that we were one of 7 yes just 7 clubs out of the entire 92 who voted for the 7 subs rule.
Philzo-93
Well-known member
Reckon he'll feature in the Gillingham tie.
Byrne & Small
New member
Wages, Travel costings, Hotels......
pasty
A different kind of pasty
I really can't understand the ruling at all. With all the furore about bringing on English youngsters into the game it seems completely counter-productive to me - Jake being a classic case in point.
According to SSN, it wasn't even on the agenda for the FL meeting, but Burnleys chairman (I think) raised it and it got through.
According to SSN, it wasn't even on the agenda for the FL meeting, but Burnleys chairman (I think) raised it and it got through.
tonymgc
Banned
Amazingly only 7 championship clubs voted to keep 7 subs. As Gus said on Tuesday they claim its to cut costs, And was decided at a league summit in Cyprus!
BensGrandad
New member
That's the cheapesty way to do things and cut costs, have a meeting in Cyprus rather than at one of the clubs in England that could accommodate it.
Would it have been voted on by 92 clubs? Isn't that the total including the premier league but the rule isn't for them so I assumed they wouldn't have voted?
This would make sense as I'm sure it most chairman consulted with their club's managers and players, they would have never voted in favour of this change.
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
Think he will get a shot against Gillingham and Gus is just trying to light a fire under him so he goes out and gives his best. Then Gus can decide what to do from there.
He's got a tough job breaking through though, sounds like he'd be limited to cup games as there are plenty of names on the list ahead of him. If we were allowed more subs there is no question it would aid his development.
shaolinpunk
[Insert witty title here]
It is such a step backwards for the development of young players. If they want to cut costs either make it so 2 of the 7 must be u21 or manage your club finances better