alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Can we name a full squad and plonk them on the bench, or must we name 5 like in the Championship ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexstar Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Back to 7 in the Prem, just like the FL is again now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Can we name a full squad and plonk them on the bench, or must we name 5 like in the Championship ? http://bit.ly/OOZ1xy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Back to 7 in the Prem, just like the FL is again now. Huh ? I must have missed this. Did they really only limit it to 5 for the skate tw*ts last season ? No wonder the pr*cks havent been thrown out and liquidated. Seems the rumour the club has something on the League is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Prem rules are 3 players from 7 potential substitutes, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 http://bit.ly/OOZ1xy Why should I bother with Google when I have such a mine of useful information at my fingertips, along with charming company, elsewhere ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexstar Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Huh ? I must have missed this. Did they really only limit it to 5 for the skate tw*ts last season ? No wonder the pr*cks havent been thrown out and liquidated. Seems the rumour the club has something on the League is true. Yeah http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7790264/Seven-subs-for-FL I think allowing the Championship 7 subs would make sense and reduce League 1 and League 2 down to 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDog Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Now that Poopey are in League 1 the rumour is that they are contemplating making League 1 games 5-a-side with rush goalies just so that they can field a full team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Now that Poopey are in League 1 the rumour is that they are contemplating making League 1 games 5-a-side with rush goalies just so that they can field a full team nice one sport... sorry about the cricket, though ! England are fireproof just now ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Why should I bother with Google when I have such a mine of useful information at my fingertips, along with charming company, elsewhere ? And delicious irony that Google produced the OP as the first info on the subject and frankly not much else helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 And delicious irony that Google produced the OP as the first info on the subject and frankly not much else helpful. Lost me there, Wes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Armstrong Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Lost me there, Wes. Was it that hard to understand? On the guy's "Let Me Google That For You", it typed in your question - and the only result of any use was this thread, which showed as the #1 search result. As such, typing your question into Google having not made this thread would not have given you an answer. Irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDog Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 nice one sport... sorry about the cricket, though ! England are fireproof just now ....... Good job I'm English then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Was it that hard to understand? On the guy's "Let Me Google That For You", it typed in your question - and the only result of any use was this thread, which showed as the #1 search result. As such, typing your question into Google having not made this thread would not have given you an answer. Irony. Thanks for the explanation. Really, I did not pick up on that. Maybe thats what comes of speaking/thinking in German all day. I simply didnt get the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Iron Gonads Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 http://bit.ly/OOZ1xy The top two results are links back to this thread the 3rd is about a rugby team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Huh ? I must have missed this. Did they really only limit it to 5 for the skate tw*ts last season ? No wonder the pr*cks havent been thrown out and liquidated. Seems the rumour the club has something on the League is true. What could their club have on the league that no other club could know though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Huh ? I must have missed this. Did they really only limit it to 5 for the skate tw*ts last season ? No wonder the pr*cks havent been thrown out and liquidated. Seems the rumour the club has something on the League is true. A Carlisle friend of mine said that one of their Directors put it forward as a money-saving exercise by reducing travel costs on the longer trips backed by a couple of people from other clubs. Enough stingy lower league versions of Guy Askham voted for it but also a lot of managers and directors were opposed to it because it would inhibit the opportunities of young players (which they were right to fear). So this is why it has reverted back to 7 in the FL. As much as we find the skates unpleasant, I think this is one allegation we can't really pin on them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 A Carlisle friend of mine said that one of their Directors put it forward as a money-saving exercise by reducing travel costs on the longer trips backed by a couple of people from other clubs. Enough stingy lower league versions of Guy Askham voted for it but also a lot of managers and directors were opposed to it because it would inhibit the opportunities of young players (which they were right to fear). So this is why it has reverted back to 7 in the FL. As much as we find the skates unpleasant, I think this is one allegation we can't really pin on them! I seem to recall when the 5 subs only rule was announced last season, the official communiques cited a request from the DCFSB directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15saints Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 http://bit.ly/OOZ1xy So much for this supercilious git then. Just love know-alls don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 http://bit.ly/OOZ1xy Seems you made a bit of a schlong of yourself there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Seems you made a bit of a schlong of yourself there.... Who me?? I feel like my palm has been super-glued to my face all lunchtime. I dare not to visit the lounge or it may become permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 An excellent example of what can be wrong with this Forum. Often its great, and informative, but the aggression and rudeness shown by a few towards people who all support the same team is very sad. This OP was a perfectly reasonable question that just needed a straightforward answer plus maybe some explanation and some comment on why the 5 sub rule was not good. Instead we have sarcasm. Its just a shame and not even amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 An excellent example of what can be wrong with this Forum. Often its great, and informative, but the aggression and rudeness shown by a few towards people who all support the same team is very sad. This OP was a perfectly reasonable question that just needed a straightforward answer plus maybe some explanation and some comment on why the 5 sub rule was not good. Instead we have sarcasm. Its just a shame and not even amusing. Not quite right professor. The OP could have quite easily done a little bit of research before spamming the forum with an inane question; where a 'yes' or 'no' response could have closed the thread. I started a thread yesterday which could have opened up a much more interesting debate on how our pre-season preparations compare to our new premiership rivals, yet only 2 replied; with fairly sarcastic comments. I started a thread that should have invited some decent debate/opinion, SPAMBOT 20,000 just posts to prove he has an internet connection in Austria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Not quite right professor. The OP could have quite easily done a little bit of research before spamming the forum with an inane question; where a 'yes' or 'no' response could have closed the thread. I started a thread yesterday which could have opened up a much more interesting debate on how our pre-season preparations compare to our new premiership rivals, yet only 2 replied; with fairly sarcastic comments. I started a thread that should have invited some decent debate/opinion, SPAMBOT 20,000 just posts to prove he has an internet connection in Austria. I suggest you just stop now, you are making yourself look a bit of a git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambol2K9 Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 Why dont we just ban all the moronic regulars who spend their whole day spamming the forum and be done with it? On topic, I never understood why the football league ever wanted to make the change to 5 subs, it benefits no-one and throttles ay chance of young players getting a run out, completely goes against the FA's grass roots campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 9 July, 2012 Share Posted 9 July, 2012 I started a thread yesterday which could have opened up a much more interesting debate on how our pre-season preparations compare to our new premiership rivals, yet only 2 replied; with fairly sarcastic comments. Totally pointless these days starting threads that might start some debate. This is why this forum has become a waste of time, not because of Alpine but because of the people that respond to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 10 July, 2012 Why dont we just ban all the moronic regulars who spend their whole day spamming the forum and be done with it? On topic, I never understood why the football league ever wanted to make the change to 5 subs, it benefits no-one and throttles ay chance of young players getting a run out, completely goes against the FA's grass roots campaign. So I was spamming, but you responded to the thread subject anyway ? Make your mind up. This was a footballing subject, and some d*ckheads came on here and had a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambol2K9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Alpine you take every thread off-topic by trying to make it revolve around you. It's tedious. Do us all a favour and find a new hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Alpine you take every thread off-topic by trying to make it revolve around you. It's tedious. Do us all a favour and find a new hobby. Nope. Draino76 was the one who took it off-topic. I dont know who you are (and dont particularly care, either), but half of your current posting appears to be having a pop at me. Practice what you preach and give it a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 I never understood why the football league ever wanted to make the change to 5 subs, it benefits no-one and throttles ay chance of young players getting a run out, completely goes against the FA's grass roots campaign. If it's about them playing hundreds of matches in development "to get a run out" rather than getting first team experience (which they are more likely to get if they're in the match day squad), then the number of subs in the first team matches is irrelevant anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Huh ? I must have missed this. Did they really only limit it to 5 for the skate tw*ts last season ? No wonder the pr*cks havent been thrown out and liquidated. Seems the rumour the club has something on the League is true. No, the Football League clubs voted for it, and it applied to the Championship, League One and League Two, affecting 72 clubs, 48 of which were in a division the team you're referring to wasn't even in. They have also now reversed the decision using the same process, still applying it to the same number of teams and still including the same number of teams which aren't Portsmouth, thereby negating any possible argument that it was done somehow for their benefit. But it does say a lot about your reasoning, and ability to fabricate utter nonsense using an illogical and warped rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 not quite right professor. The op could have quite easily done a little bit of research before spamming the forum with an inane question; where a 'yes' or 'no' response could have closed the thread. I started a thread yesterday which could have opened up a much more interesting debate on how our pre-season preparations compare to our new premiership rivals, yet only 2 replied; with fairly sarcastic comments. I started a thread that should have invited some decent debate/opinion, spambot 20,000 just posts to prove he has an internet connection in austria. lol :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 No, the Football League clubs voted for it, and it applied to the Championship, League One and League Two, affecting 72 clubs, 48 of which were in a division the team you're referring to wasn't even in. They have also now reversed the decision using the same process, still applying it to the same number of teams and still including the same number of teams which aren't Portsmouth, thereby negating any possible argument that it was done somehow for their benefit. But it does say a lot about your reasoning, and ability to fabricate utter nonsense using an illogical and warped rationale. I didnt fabricate anything. There was a lengthy discussion on here at the time about the FLs motivation for this reduction (I'll leave it to the pedantic amongst us to search for it), and it was a wide held opinion that the blue slime couldnt fill a bench up so lobbied for the reduction to give them an even playing field. The issue of 48 clubs not being in the same division is not necessarily relevant, since maybe the FL has or wants to have the same rules within each division that it administrates. Oh, and whether you like it or not, DFCSB are getting far more bites at the cherry to sort their financial problems out before the axe swings than some other clubs that have suffered a similar fate, such as Luton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 (edited) I didnt fabricate anything. There was a lengthy discussion on here at the time about the FLs motivation for this reduction (I'll leave it to the pedantic amongst us to search for it), and it was a wide held opinion that the blue slime couldnt fill a bench up so lobbied for the reduction to give them an even playing field. The issue of 48 clubs not being in the same division is not necessarily relevant, since maybe the FL has or wants to have the same rules within each division that it administrates. Oh, and whether you like it or not, DFCSB are getting far more bites at the cherry to sort their financial problems out before the axe swings than some other clubs that have suffered a similar fate, such as Luton. A "widely held belief" amongst paranoid mentals, the same people who are convinced the media have it in for Saints when actually most of them couldn't give a toss about us as we're not newsworthy. The "widely held belief" around football outside Saints fans was that FL clubs who voted for it were better off not having to waste kids who weren't ready just to fill their benches and they'd be better playing reserve/dev football - the opposing belief being that similar more ready kids weren't getting on the smaller benches thus restricting their chances. Nothing to do with Portsmouth in particular, and also ignoring the complete lack of motive for any other club to vote to help one of their rivals. And much as they should be put down, the Skates are being dealt with exactly according to the same rules as applied to the likes of Bournemouth and Luton. The only possible criticism that can come the FL's way regarding this is if they fail to deal with the written off first CVA with an additional deduction, and none of that will be meted out until their next CVA approval (or otherwise). Beyond that it's up to the law of the land to identify if they're insolvent, and (somehow) they haven't. You're also showing quite a lot of ignorance of the detail of the AFCB and Luton cases, in which there were extra punishments for irregular payments due to direct testimony. Only you are making this about Portsmouth in any way. Edited 12 July, 2012 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambol2K9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 I dont know who you are (and dont particularly care, either), but half of your current posting appears to be having a pop at me. Practice what you preach and give it a rest. Because I used to enjoy the forum but it's ruined by you and several others who spend your entire lives on here trolling every thread. Do us all a favour and find something else to spend your day doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Because I used to enjoy the forum but it's ruined by you and several others who spend your entire lives on here trolling every thread. Do us all a favour and find something else to spend your day doing. Nope, and your whining isnt going to change my posting style or content in the slightest. So deal with it and save yourself the energy you use when bleating about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Because I used to enjoy the forum but it's ruined by you and several others who spend your entire lives on here trolling every thread. Do us all a favour and find something else to spend your day doing. This is what the ignore button is for. Though when the forum upgraded I took everyone off it. Considering changing that again for the repetitive ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 A "widely held belief" amongst paranoid mentals, the same people who are convinced the media have it in for Saints when actually most of them couldn't give a toss about us as we're not newsworthy. The "widely held belief" around football outside Saints fans was that FL clubs who voted for it were better off not having to waste kids who weren't ready just to fill their benches and they'd be better playing reserve/dev football - the opposing belief being that similar more ready kids weren't getting on the smaller benches thus restricting their chances. Nothing to do with Portsmouth in particular, and also ignoring the complete lack of motive for any other club to vote to help one of their rivals. And much as they should be put down, the Skates are being dealt with exactly according to the same rules as applied to the likes of Bournemouth and Luton. The only possible criticism that can come the FL's way regarding this is if they fail to deal with the written off first CVA with an additional deduction, and none of that will be meted out until their next CVA approval (or otherwise). Beyond that it's up to the law of the land to identify if they're insolvent, and (somehow) they haven't. You're also showing quite a lot of ignorance of the detail of the AFCB and Luton cases, in which there were extra punishments for irregular payments due to direct testimony. Only you are making this about Portsmouth in any way. No, I wasnt. There were other "paranoid mentals" as you so nastily put it. And in addition, the phrase "what have the Skates got on the League?" crops up frquently throughout the massive Pompey Takeover thread in the Lounge, so get your facts right. Ultimately I couldnt care less about the motivations, my post was a simple piece of emotional rhetoric in reaction at that time to a piece of news. This is a CHAT site, not a f**king court of law, where pedantic zombies like you with nothing better to do, fill their lives with meaning by correcting the posts of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 This is what the ignore button is for. Though when the forum upgraded I took everyone off it. Considering changing that again for the repetitive ones. Hark at Mr. "Look at Meee, I am ITK about the New Kit" sermonising about repetitiveness.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Would there be something wrong with saying name as many subs as you like, but can still only use 3? Then it's up to the clubs. If you have a 25 man squad + youths you can only use them anyway. Gets more people involved, more interesting tactical decisions for management and so on. Apparently there was something wrong with it in the Championship last season, apparently the problem has now gone away. And according to The9 it has absolutely nothing to do with out departure, (or WHams ? or Readings ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Normally I'd mock, but I'd say there's a fair chance PFC have/had something on the league. An interesting analogy from the last week. The Barclays business. Did the Bank of England know or collude ? I am more than curious about "feedback" DCFSB was getting from the footballing authorities over the past few years. From what I can see they have been trading insolvently for some time, but the authorities are scared of cancelling game results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Hark at Mr. "Look at Meee, I am ITK about the New Kit" sermonising about repetitiveness.... I am not in the same galaxy as you for thread spamming, and again, only your warped logic looks at having a genuine interest in a subject on one thread as being "repetitive". From this I can summarise that your interests are sh!1t-stirring, being miserable, paranoid and argumentative, trying to find the negative in every single thing, and generally ruining other people's discussion with irrelevances. I suspect you will now respond with a whine about being the recipient of personal attacks, despite having just changed the discussion from being about how likely it was that the entire of the football league clubs voted for a substitution change purely to benefit Portsmouth Football Club, to you having a pop at me about sharing information a fair few people were interested in about the kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 I am not in the same galaxy as you for thread spamming, and again, only your warped logic looks at having a genuine interest in a subject on one thread as being "repetitive". From this I can summarise that your interests are sh!1t-stirring, being miserable, paranoid and argumentative, trying to find the negative in every single thing, and generally ruining other people's discussion with irrelevances. I suspect you will now respond with a whine about being the recipient of personal attacks, despite having just changed the discussion from being about how likely it was that the entire of the football league clubs voted for a substitution change purely to benefit Portsmouth Football Club, to you having a pop at me about sharing information a fair few people were interested in about the kit. Yes, truly amazing how the focus of a discussion changes when one party starts calling the other "paranoid mentals", isnt it ? And your follow-up metaphors on here are hardly the behaviour of a person keen to get the discussion back on-subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Would there be something wrong with saying name as many subs as you like, but can still only use 3? Then it's up to the clubs. If you have a 25 man squad + youths you can only use them anyway. Gets more people involved, more interesting tactical decisions for management and so on. It's up to the clubs to decide the rules anyway, so there's nothing wrong with it if that's what the majority decide. The issue then is that the smaller clubs would probably feel marginalised, with the larger clubs able to choose from far more tactical options and actually use their depth to tangible benefit. The limitation to a smaller number of subs removes that benefit slightly because once the subs are named the options are already limited. The higher the number of subs, the greater the benefit to clubs with bigger squads of a high standard - although I'd also suggest that the marginal benefit to having an additional sub decreases by each sub - having 17 subs instead of 15 is a much less benefit to bigger clubs than having 7 instead of 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 An interesting analogy from the last week. The Barclays business. Did the Bank of England know or collude ? I am more than curious about "feedback" DCFSB was getting from the footballing authorities over the past few years. From what I can see they have been trading insolvently for some time, but the authorities are scared of cancelling game results. Which of course ties in perfectly with them not just closing them down at the end of last season. More utter illogic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Which of course ties in perfectly with them not just closing them down at the end of last season. More utter illogic. The administrators were in by then. They couldnt be closed down just like that. Actually, you are a bit of an idiot, arent you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Apparently there was something wrong with it in the Championship last season, apparently the problem has now gone away. And according to The9 it has absolutely nothing to do with out departure, (or WHams ? or Readings ?) More misinformation and illogic. I didn't say anything about it being "wrong" (and actually said the complete opposite in a response to adrian just now). There is also no "apparently", they have definitely changed the rules to 7 subs in the FL, not that we need to be bothered about that now. I can't even begin to wonder how you think it HAS got anything to do with any of the promoted teams, either. Especially West Ham, who have a ridiculously large squad and would have significantly benefited from being able to name 7 of their strikers and no keeper (probably). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 (edited) The administrators were in by then. They couldnt be closed down just like that. Actually, you are a bit of an idiot, arent you ? You were talking about the football authorities, unless you mean that those involved legal process were bothered about cancelling football results, which of course you didn't. The football authorities can stop them playing any time they like - within their rules. Insolvency means there is no company to complete the fixtures, but the FL can't act until after that and are not responsible for it. They can however prevent any team from starting a season if they don't think they'll be able to complete their fixtures. You have suggested they didn't kick Portsmouth out because they were scared of cancelling fixtures (a provision which is taken care of within the rules) but also suggested they kept them going by ignoring their rules (supported by no evidence at all). Edited 12 July, 2012 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 (edited) Anyway, back to the facts from last year's 2011 FL EGM : "Hard-up Football League clubs will hold an emergency meeting this week to scrap the seven substitutes’ rule. Many clubs find it difficult to name that many and want to revert to five subs." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2015810/Football-League-revert-substitutes.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/21/football-league-five-substitutes "The League had followed the Premier League in naming seven substitutes for matches last season, but clubs frequently struggled to muster 18 players for a matchday squad when injuries hit. With most struggling to fund large squads, it was expected it would be an issue again this season" And the FL statement : http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20110721/league-clubs-to-reduce-subs-from-7-to-5_2293334_2398424 "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." " Here's the return to 7 for the forthcoming season, with the proposal named as raised by Derby and Birmingham with the justification given by the clubs as "The move to reduce bench sizes to five last summer came in a bid to bring down costs, with many teams struggling to fund large squads. However, the decision proved unpopular among many managers, as it limited options from the bench as well as denying some youth team players the chance to gain exposure in the first team." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18297359 And hey, look at THIS craziness, here's Portsmouth's manager SUPPORTING the change to seven subs : http://www.chichester.co.uk/sport/football/pompey-latest/appleton-applauds-sub-switch-proposals-1-3900033 which also includes comments about "In Cyprus last summer clubs voted in favour of granting Burnley’s suggestion in a bid to reduce costs. At the time it was heavily criticised by managers across the league, among them then-Pompey boss Steve Cotterill." The change to 5 was proposed by Burnley, "many" clubs were expected to struggle and both the then- and current- Skate managers prefer the 7 sub configuration. So based on that, I'd suggest the term "paranoid mentals" is probably about right for people who think it was a ploy to benefit Portsmouth alone. Edited 12 July, 2012 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 July, 2012 Share Posted 12 July, 2012 Oh, and for a further delicious irony, the Skates have now been deducted 10 points for next season. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18816436 " the League have told both potential owners the club must agree to certain conditions to play this season. As well as a 10-point deduction, these include paying all football creditors in full and strict financial controls. The deduction would leave Portsmouth, who only have eight senior players on the books following Tuesday's departure of Aaron Mokoena, facing a battle to avoid a second successive relegation before the new season even gets under way. But in a statement the Football League said the conditions of membership offered to Portsmouth "seek to ensure the sporting integrity of league football and the financial viability of the club going forward"." Sooooo, they're definitely doing them a load of favours because Portsmouth have something on the FL then... the FL haven't even considered the CVA question yet either, which could possibly be another -10... and then there's that punishment for multiple admins, and whether the punishment for being in 2 admins in 2 years is applicable... etc. Has any one person spoken more tangibly proven wrong crap in a few paranoid mental posts than alpine has managed here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now