Getting away from the negative approach to the Man City game for a minute, and focussing on the financial inequality in the Premier League.... Clearly this is something the authorities care not a jot about. There is a very simple solution after all: revert back to only being allowed to name 3 substitutes. If this rule was brought back in, it'd bring a lot more competition back. Clubs like United, Chelsea, City, Tottenham would be unable to keep a squad of 25 top class players happy; Squad sizes would be reduced and there would be more focus on bringing youth players through as clearly they wouldn't be throwing a strop when not selected.
It would also actually bring the tactical ability of the managers into play a lot more; making sure they name the 3 substitutes who they feel before the match are most suited for the game. As opposed to seeing how a game is panning out as they do at the moment, and then selecting a substitute from 7 options.
What is the reason teams need to name 7 substitutes anyway? Is this something the elite voted for to maintain their grip on the status quo, allowing them to select 1 from 7 of their megastar substitutes as opposed to having to actually think tactically and pick 1 from 3?
Reducing the number of substitutes a team can nominate would make things more exciting for the fans and level the playing field for those clubs, like Everton, who only have small squads.
Just a thought.
Robbie Riddal, Posted 24/09/2011 at
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 24/09/2011 at 21:20:46
So long as all the Asians are happy supporting the usual suspects, reducing their advantage will be a no go. Expect lucrative contracts to reduce if the interest in the big teams waned by being usurped by upstart smaller teams.
2 Posted 24/09/2011 at 21:28:04
Clearly, with the state of finances outside the Premier League (and you could say in it), this seems to stretch most teams rather than help them.
3 Posted 24/09/2011 at 21:39:03
Think it would help football.
4 Posted 24/09/2011 at 21:51:17
5 Posted 24/09/2011 at 22:12:12
6 Posted 24/09/2011 at 23:12:39
7 Posted 24/09/2011 at 23:17:46
8 Posted 24/09/2011 at 23:33:15
9 Posted 24/09/2011 at 23:36:45
I like the idea of bringing down the number of subs but that's out of nostalgia and not because I feel it will bring more equality into play.
10 Posted 25/09/2011 at 00:18:56
The EPL runs along the lines of business in the global free market. If a club has the financial muscle, it uses it to dominate. If it doesn't, it uses creative means to narrow the disadvantage etc etc.
If we want fairness across the clubs, it is better for the league to run in the framework of the NBA - total wage bills are capped, players are exchanged and rookies are drafted with the weakest teams given right to choose first.
11 Posted 25/09/2011 at 00:47:21
12 Posted 25/09/2011 at 01:59:27
I remember the days when football was played with no substitutes.
13 Posted 25/09/2011 at 03:10:30
14 Posted 25/09/2011 at 10:43:28
Would we have seen Barkley with the 3 sub rule?
15 Posted 25/09/2011 at 12:02:20
16 Posted 25/09/2011 at 12:51:14
At the moment, we have a situation where top clubs like United & City can name almost 3 teams that could be competitive toward the top end of the Premier League; eliminate the number of substitutes a club can name and you drastically reduce the chances of these top class players having game-time; the clubs wouldn't be able to keep these players happy, the players would want to be at a club where they will be involved. I think we'd see a more even spread of top class players at different clubs.
The younger players would be training with the top players as they'd be part of the first team squad, and they'd get their opportunity when injuries and suspensions hit, and when fixtures pile up.
This is of course on the presumption that most top footballers are hungry to actually play football, rather than being happy to be one of 25 top players with a stake in being in a squad of 15, happy just to pick up their astronomical wages.
I can't see any downside to it. I don't see why it'd have to be 3+ GK either; it's for the manager to decide or gamble on whether he wants to include one. Like it used to be. Certainly make it more interesting and entertaining anyway.
I don't see how they will be able to introduce a wage cap anyway - there will always be a way to circumnavigate financial restrictions like this - but there's no way any club can circumnavigate a ruling such as number of substitutes one can name. 25 international players competing for 14 places is a lot more difficult to maintain than 25 international players competing for 18 places.
17 Posted 25/09/2011 at 15:08:32
18 Posted 25/09/2011 at 16:27:42
19 Posted 26/09/2011 at 07:33:29
Rather than city having 7 x £20 million players on the bench, it'd just change to having 3 x £50 million players.
We still wouldn't be able to afford a single £20 million player on ours, and the difference in class would remain.
We can try and cut the cake whichever way we want, but there is no defeating the basic principle that clubs with money will buy and use the best players, and we will always be on the backfoot.
Life isn't fair, and neither is football - we just have to accept it. Changing rules because we can't compete isn't the answer.
20 Posted 26/09/2011 at 09:20:23
In general I am surprised that people keep coming up with certain rules/solutions that do not directly target the issue in hand.
Eric (#12) I am NOT talking about transfer spendings but about the footballing budgets in total, so wages included.
21 Posted 26/09/2011 at 09:30:41
22 Posted 26/09/2011 at 13:18:06
Football is all about cycles. At present, Man City and Chelsea have got their time at the top but it will change, it always does. I am not saying it will or wont be us but as sure as eggs are eggs the likes of City and Chelsea ie clubs that rely on external money, will return to their previous level as their owners move on to their next hobby.
At the moment we are what we are; we survive financially and are playing Premier League football. My biggest moan at the moment is with the manager and his dire tactics. I believe we are the most boring team in the Premier League and that is the main reason why fans are deserting in their numbers. If we carry on as we are, gates will be down to 25k by the start of next season.
23 Posted 26/09/2011 at 17:02:02
There is more than just the odd "green eyed monster" post these days (not necessarily referring to any in particular), and it smacks too much of the impatient, whingy and needy child, simply because we are the ones going without.
It is as it is - we have to learn to deal with it. Otherwise we risk being perceived as turning into newcastle-type fans...we don't have a god-given right to anything. And if it turns out that we end up in the championship because there are 18 clubs richer than us who can attract/pay for the best players and thus win more football games, then I'm afraid thats life.
Having said that, there is a wider frowning at the business model that is the premiership, and I agree - but only if its as part of the "harming the game" argument, not the "its not fair we aren't winning anything" camp.
Other sports have introduced caps on the financials (wages, etc). I'd love to hear how that actually works in practice, and whether its made any difference to the "poor" clubs ability to compete for the highest honours.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.