[Dirtycheat]

Spurs & Man Utd ask for more subs

Originally Posted by bbc sport

Tottenham and Manchester United have urged the Premier League to allow teams to have more substitutes on the bench.

United boss Sir Alex Ferguson and Spurs coach Juande Ramos say there should be seven substitutes to choose from rather than present limit of five.

"Every club has players of squads of more than 16 players," said Ferguson.

"I didn't choose Darren Fletcher for the Arsenal game and that was a kick in a teeth for him and it didn't sit easy with me," added Ferguson.

Manchester City boss Sven-Goran Eriksson also favours a change in the Premier League's rules on substitutes, with managers allowed to bring on three players from a choice of five.

The Premier League said it was willing to look at the issue, but any change was unlikely to come into effect before the start of next season.

"If member clubs want to raise it then we'll look and discuss it as a league," a Premier League spokesman told BBC Sport.

"We've resisted the idea before because we feel it favours the bigger clubs who have bigger squads.

"If it was raised it would be go to summer conference and if the clubs agreed it could be in place for the start of the 2008/2009 season.

Premier League voting rules require 14 out of the 20 clubs to back rule changes.

In Champions League matches as well as international fixtures coaches and managers are allowed to name seven subs and bring on three of them.

what do you think?

should there be more subs to chose from or would that disadvantage smaller clubs even more?

[TeKnIcIaN]

I'll have to think on this one a bit. I remember when there was only one substitute allowed to be on the bench, and that was only in case of injury or downright lousy play.

It would give the managers a greater option to change the face of the game - considering you could have 3/4 of a team sitting on the bench. The bigger clubs could also "rest" their stars on the bench and only bring them on if needed. I know that can be done now, but with this change, you'd have the option of having two or three big stars that you really want to rest sitting on the bench ready to go on if things go pear-shaped.

My initial reaction was "If SAF thinks it's good, then I'm onboard with that!" but after some consideration, it probably would be a disadvantage to smaller squads. I've moved back to being on the fence.

[MENTAL]

I Think Yes Because What If Some Players Get Injured? And They Dont Really Have Enough Players On The Pitch Like Sometimes Teams Play With 10men And Have No Subs Left So Teams Should Have More Subs

[dada]

CL has being doing fine with it so I dont see any problems. This gets the go ahead approval from the I.

[GocartMozart]

as we've debated in the past, i think that 5 is plenty. in particular I think that it forces good managers to show their skill, while adding another two subs, just makes life easier. Their point that every team has 25 players is absolute bullocks, because if you look at the quality of those extra 2 players they are going to add to the bench, those two players ont he reading team are no names, while on United they are internationals. To me I want to make it a fairer playing field and that means keeping the status quo. When I start hearing the likes of Middlesborough and Sunderland complain, that's when I'll start to pay attention to comments such as this.

[macca247]

dont think it matters as only 3 can come on anyway