Five Substitute Rule

[Ronnief]

Should the Five Substitute Rule be introduced in the Premier League next season, what effect do we think that this will have on Fulham and other such clubs?

[_Putney_]

Why stop at 5? Why not 6? Why not 11?

[S.F.Sorrow]

That would be a huge disadvantage for us. We will be lucky to have 11 players of Premier League quality. Most of the other teams will have much better squad depth until we've had a couple of seasons (hopefully) to build a decent Premier League squad. Next season we will probably need a bit of luck with injuries/suspensions to even have a realistic chance of survival.

[MikeTheCubed]

Would be in favour of an extra sub if it were restricted to Youth / Home-Grown players etc.

[WindyCity]

That would be a huge disadvantage for us. We will be lucky to have 11 players of Premier League quality. Most of the other teams will have much better squad depth

Agree with this.  Huge advantage for the bigger clubs. 

[H4usuallysitting]

I'd go old school....no substitutions

[ALG01]

three is too many and has been part of a concerning change in balance in football. the more subs you allow, the more it favours the biggest and strongest teams.

I am in favour of one sub because that was introduced for injury and then extended to tactical. it was then one a nd a keeper if memory serves and now the top teams who are less than ethical in anything they do want to load the dice further. This is a very bad thing.

And just on watching the game the changes change the dynamic especially the changes in the last few minutes which I would absolutely abolish except for injury. so if you take off somebody in the last 10 miutes because he is 'injured' then he would autmatically miss the next three games, because clearly he is unfit and needs to rest and recover!

[Andy S]

As has been said it give the advantage to the bigger teams that already have an advantage. So no not for me. If it ain't broke don't fix it

[Woolly Mammoth]

No Way can this happen, it would not be a level playing field, not that it is one anyway.
The lunatics have clearly taken over the asylum.

[The Rational Fan]

No Way can this happen, it would not be a level playing field, not that it is one anyway. The lunatics have clearly taken over the asylum.

I wish "lunatics have taken over the asylum" that would be a much better situation. Unfortunately, it is much worse than that as "greedy business owners and their international bankers that are total sane have taken over the asylum".

There is no doubt, as it has been proven rationally (i.e. mental analysis) and empirically (i.e. on the field) that "the more substitutes that are allowed, the more the bigger budget team tends to win". The big clubs hate "David beating Goliath" at least when they are Goliath, allowing more substitutes makes upsets much less common and football more boring.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

If the big powers get their way and this is pushed through there must be a rule that the subs can only be made within certain time limits in the game and possibly two sets of pairs being made within certain periods.
Rugby Union has got bad enough and we would not want football to go the same way.

[filham]

A lot of us can remember when a football team consisted of 11 players , we are now getting close to 11 subs which would mean the top teams could field two teams of quality players each on the field for 45 minutes.

No we have gone too far, I would go back to only two subs to cover injured players.

[blingo]

2 for Blingo too.

[Holders]

Two picked from five on the bench seems plenty.

[Thailand Mick]

Yet another rule change to protect the big boys but having said that how many times have you seen a team losing use all their substitutes and turn it around, not often from memory.

[Mr K.Dilkington]

5 subs gives the big clubs a huge advantage over the lesser ones. And klopp should be shamed for pushing it as he's supposidly all for the politics of equality. I guess he's just not for equality in football lol...then the big guy still reigns over the little one.

[ALG01]

Yet another rule change to protect the big boys but having said that how many times have you seen a team losing use all their substitutes and turn it around, not often from memory.

It's not just that. More subs mean more players can be kept happy therefore the bigger clubs can buyy more of the better players and stop them from going elswhere to get some football..

[LC]

The new role puts us at a disadvantage, all the more important to increase the quality of the squad

[Grassy Noel]

Why stop at 5? Why not 6? Why not 11?

Didn't Sven change the entire England team at half time for one friendly international? It turned that game into a ridiculous spectacle but at least play was not interrupted!

[MartyFFC]

The way big clubs have been using 'player welfare' to gain an advantage over clubs with smaller squads, is as cynical as it is opportunistic. Pathetic.