5 subs?

[Bluebonic]

I'd like to see 7 on the bench but at least 2 need to be <21 y.o. I'd then allow a 4th sub as long as it's one of the kids and they get a minimum 15 mins game time. It would force clubs to develop youth more effectively

lay your common sense down and step away, we will shoot!

 

[Bebeto]

It is imperative that the democratic vote to turn down this 5 sub idea is allowed to stand. It is disgraceful that the top 6 richest clubs are allowed to try to reverse the vote.

They have no chance of winning the vote...most clubs would want to keep it as 3 subs even if 1 or 2 teams are bribed to change their vote it won't be enough.

 

[mightymoyes]

I'd like to see 7 on the bench but at least 2 need to be <21 y.o. I'd then allow a 4th sub as long as it's one of the kids and they get a minimum 15 mins game time. It would force clubs to develop youth more effectively

Yes only way it should be increased is if its someway related to academy or youth players.

 

[messymascot]

I like the idea of being able to bring on a goalkeeper for an injured goalkeeper and it not counting as part of the 3. However if the goalkeeper is replacing an outfield player following a sending off it should be part of the 3. 5/9 should only be allowed if the additional 2 are home grown players. The only downside with this is if there is a team like United of the 90s where usually at least 2 of their subs were internationals that were home grown so could still be manipulated.

 

[Joey66]

I see there's a move afoot to reconsider the decision (made only a fortnight ago) to go back to having just 3 subs. No prizes for guessing which teams are leading the call.

The original vote saw 13 for just the 3 subs and 7 for allowing 5. Any club outside the leading 4 or 5 would be voting against their own interests if they switch their vote now and vote for 5. I don't know which way we voted first time round but I sure hope we don't put ourselves at an even greater disadvantage than now by supporting the RS, City, Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal in voting for something that can only serve to widen the gap between such clubs and ourselves. Could there be anything more discouraging and so soul-destroying than to see City warming up their fourth and fifth subs in the form of de Bruyne and Aguero when we're about to bring on Tom Davies or Walcott as we attempt to cling on to a point going into the last 15 minutes?

5 great players for us would be a start

 

[bluenorthwarrior]

Some clubs have been bribed to change their votes

This.

The usual suspects will have been using the age old 'considering changes to the way the TV money is distributed to give more to those who draw the most fans' or the old favourite 'looking at creating a European superleague' chestnut to scare enough clubs who are happy to just keep the money coming into voting the way they are told to.

If this comes back for another vote it has already passed or else it would not be coming back in the first place.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

I see there's a move afoot to reconsider the decision (made only a fortnight ago) to go back to having just 3 subs. No prizes for guessing which teams are leading the call.

The original vote saw 13 for just the 3 subs and 7 for allowing 5. Any club outside the leading 4 or 5 would be voting against their own interests if they switch their vote now and vote for 5. I don't know which way we voted first time round but I sure hope we don't put ourselves at an even greater disadvantage than now by supporting the RS, City, Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal in voting for something that can only serve to widen the gap between such clubs and ourselves. Could there be anything more discouraging and so soul-destroying than to see City warming up their fourth and fifth subs in the form of de Bruyne and Aguero when we're about to bring on Tom Davies or Walcott as we attempt to cling on to a point going into the last 15 minutes?

I wonder whats prompted this 2nd vote?