Any plans to continue with nine players on the bench with five able to come on was thrown out at the Premier League Shareholders Meeting a few weeks ago with the league, sensibly in my view, returning to seven subs with three able to come on.

But that's not good enough for some clubs and five of them are pushing to get it changed ahead of kick off in two weeks time so they can bring on five as they did in Project Restart. It's no surprise that the five are Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United.

Lets hope the other 15 reject it.

Who’s going to bet that they don’t get their way. Spoilt brats.

Probably been lobbying hard since the initial vote, with a few sweeteners for anyone willing to switch to their side.

Don’t be surprised to see a yes vote followed by a raft of loan players to those who changed their minds.

Hope not Sean wants it cut to 2

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:02 am

Probably been lobbying hard since the initial vote, with a few sweeteners for anyone willing to switch to their side.

Don’t be surprised to see a yes vote followed by a raft of loan players to those who changed their minds.

Wasn't the vote 10-10 at the time? If so, they only need to get four to switch and it looks as if they are confident.

If this goes through I hope we also get to keep the mid-half timeouts too as I thought they were a great idea and really well received

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:28 am

Wasn't the vote 10-10 at the time? If so, they only need to get four to switch and it looks as if they are confident.

Think it was 11 against extra subs and 9 for.
It’s ridiculous that this is not put to bed for at least another season. They voted and there was a decision.

I think FIFA should get involved to ensure there’s a fair vote

What worries me about all this with sweeteners etc. is that you start to get into the realms of match fixing.

I believe they’re going to use the Belarus system for the next vote

According to The Mirror the vote was 13-7 in favour of reverting to three subs which is a big gap to try and turn around.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:35 am

Think it was 11 against extra subs and 9 for.
It’s ridiculous that this is not put to bed for at least another season. They voted and there was a decision.

Spot on - nine in favour and eleven against which means the top five's lobbying has given them confidence that they've changed the minds of five of those who said now.

https://www.uptheclarets.com/var-and-su ... ext-season

So they want 5 subs, and to pick and choose when they play their games, the sooner they beggar off to the European Super League or whatever they set up the better, I'm fed up with their constant whining and the stamping of their feet like a naughty toddler.

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 11:16 am

So they want 5 subs, and to pick and choose when they play their games, the sooner they beggar off to the European Super League or whatever they set up the better, I'm fed up with their constant whining and the stamping of their feet like a naughty toddler.

Agree with the above post. I've missed my football like everyone else but the 'constant whining' and sheer petulance that rears it's ugly head far too often is a sharp reminder of the 'ills' that beset the modern game and something I definetly don't miss.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:32 am

If this goes through I hope we also get to keep the mid-half timeouts too as I thought they were a great idea and really well received

I’ve been a bit disappointed with your ‘low hanging fruit’ approach to devilment recently. You really must do better!!

Where on earth are we going to find 9 for the bench if this happens?

Who ever said its just 11 v 11

Second vote on five substitutes in Premier League set for defeat again

Another defeat looming for 5 subs vote in Premier League - sounds like nearly all those clubs who voted against last month are holding firm. Vote on Thu.

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/statu ... 1823875073

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seco ... -bdntl056t

Good news - still three subs to be used next season, the fat cats have for once been defeated

Good news, the mob of 6 have enough advantage as it is.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:30 pm

Good news - still three subs to be used next season, the fat cats have for once been defeated

Aye but that will be subject to an appeal or a VAR review or some other manufactured excuse to try to get it to happen!

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:30 pm

Good news - still three subs to be used next season, the fat cats have for once been defeated

I've been wondering whether clubs could be allowed 5 subs, but for every sub more than 3 the opposition is awarded a penalty before the additional sub can come on. It would make the game more interesting rather than "look at how many £50m+ players we have on our bench" as we aim to "buy" success again.

UTC

Good idea Paul.

Or perhaps even a "one on, two off" approach after the third substitute.

... and you cannot make a third subsitute after 70 minutes.

I’d be fine with it if they said 2 players had to be homegrown and under 21 or something similar

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:42 pm

I’d be fine with it if they said 2 players had to be homegrown and under 21 or something similar

if at all possible, don't give these big clubs in inch because they will sure as hell take a good few yards.

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:42 pm

I’d be fine with it if they said 2 players had to be homegrown and under 21 or something similar

I've never really understood the point of ideas like this. Surely young players not yet good enough to make the matchday squad on merit are better off playing in youth/reserve football than sitting on the bench for the first team?

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:49 pm

I've never really understood the point of ideas like this. Surely young players not yet good enough to make the matchday squad on merit are better off playing in youth/reserve football than sitting on the bench for the first team?

Yeah I understand your point to be fair, what I mean is that it won’t give teams an advantage of having 9 world class subs, and it might mean a few young players get the chance to play, I’m sure these tops clubs do have young players that will be good enough to hold their own, they just don’t get the chance.

I’m certainly not for 9 subs, but I’d probably not be as fussed if it wasnt* strengthening teams as such.