More players needed..

[Ackey]

Picture this from Ryan Brookes point if view. tuesday night match away at gillingham, 18 man squad and you go all the way down there, warm up and then get told your not on the bench today lad, because that is what happens now, 18 man squad, 16 only for a match. i am sure players like him would rather have the oppourtunity to go on, instead of 7 hours down there on a coach .. get changed, jog about, without the chance of even playing, go and get changed, wait to watch the team, and then go back 7 hours after a totally pointless night.

So he'll be the 19th man instead and we'll have increased costs. Good times.

[Delfer]

How much did average crowds at BP reduce by last season?

 

2008/09 5636

2007/08 5334

2006/07 6334

2005/06 5796

2004/05 6462

2003/04 6566

2002/03 6699

 

Apart from minor increases in what were play off & potential play off years I think you'll agree that the trend is downwards, a graph would illustrate the position better. and I don't see next season looking any better.

[Delfer]

So he'll be the 19th man instead and we'll have increased costs. Good times.

 

Wake up FFS - we'll just take the same sizes squad, if someone got injured the risk would be 6 on the bench and this may well happen anyway. If only people could see reasons for making things work rather than obstacles to why they can't.

[opinions4u]

Picture this from Ryan Brookes point if view. tuesday night match away at gillingham, 18 man squad and you go all the way down there, warm up and then get told your not on the bench today lad, because that is what happens now, 18 man squad, 16 only for a match. i am sure players like him would rather have the oppourtunity to go on, instead of 7 hours down there on a coach .. get changed, jog about, without the chance of even playing, go and get changed, wait to watch the team, and then go back 7 hours after a totally pointless night.

If you're only allowed to bring on 3 subs, you already know which 3 out of 5 are likely to be used.

 

How many times have we had someone like Lomax on the bench? No disrespect intended to the lad, but he's not going to be introduced after 67 minutes with an instruction to get on and change the course of the game is he?

 

Increasing the 5 to 7 means people travelling to places like Gillingham knowing full well that there isn't a cat in hells chance of them playing, even if they're on the bench. I would hazard a guess that the individuals affected would much rather be playing in a competitive reserve team fixture knowing that they can be at home within an hour of the final whistle.

 

 

At the end of the day football exists to please the fans, and should a full-back get injured and a centre-mid get sent in there to cover it can spoil a game

Equally sticking the big centre back up front to replace the injured striker, then watching him score the winner is fantastic for fans.

 

 

Apart from minor increases in what were play off & potential play off years I think you'll agree that the trend is downwards, a graph would illustrate the position better. and I don't see next season looking any better.

Thanks for the numbers Delfer. What they show to me is that when the side looks like they might go up the crowds are bigger. When hope is diminished they're smaller. Now take it a step further:

 

1) How much will crowds increase by if a manager can name 7 subs instead of 5?

2) How much will costs increase by in the same scenario?

 

My answers are

 

1) Aboslutely nothing

2) A small amount

 

I fail to see the benefit to any football club in the lower leagues.

Edited June 14, 2009 by opinions4u

[Ackey]

2008/09 5636

2007/08 5334

 

Apart from minor increases in what were play off & potential play off years I think you'll agree that the trend is downwards, a graph would illustrate the position better. and I don't see next season looking any better.

 

If only people could see reasons for making things work rather than obstacles to why they can't.

You're lecturing me on positivity when at the same time suggesting that an increase in attendence is insignificant. Ironic.

 

On the whole I'm a positive person. In fact many times on here I've been called a "happy clapper" or "super fan". However this is not a positive step in my opinion. I've given two examples as to why. CP's given one. You've just been sarcastic and inflamatory.

 

Why not contribute an idea as to why this benefits Latics...?

 

Increasing the 5 to 7 means people travelling to places like Gillingham knowing full well that there isn't a cat in hells chance of them playing, even if they're on the bench. I would hazard a guess that the individuals affected would much rather be playing in a competitive reserve team fixture knowing that they can be at home within an hour of the final whistle.

Thanks for wording this much better than I did - Your point means an increase in costs to Latics, or an increased strain on our already limited squad.

 

A negative.

[Delfer]

You're lecturing me on positivity when at the same time suggesting that an increase in attendence is insignificant. Ironic.

 

On the whole I'm a positive person. In fact many times on here I've been called a "happy clapper" or "super fan". However this is not a positive step in my opinion. I've given two examples as to why. CP's given one. You've just been sarcastic and inflamatory.

 

Why not contribute an idea as to why this benefits Latics...?

 

 

Thanks for wording this much better than I did - Your point means an increase in costs to Latics, or an increased strain on our already limited squad.

 

A negative.

 

I've supplied facts to back my opinion about the club dwindling, it's the town, economy and demographics facts that are all contributing. It won't benefit Latics more than any other club but a good manager will embrace it & utilise it better than a bad one, lets hope DP proves to be a good one.

 

As for being sarcastic on a message board? As father Jack once said I'm sooo sooo sorry!

[Ackey]

I've supplied facts to back my opinion about the club dwindling, it's the town, economy and demographics facts that are all contributing. It won't benefit Latics more than any other club but a good manager will embrace it & utilise it better than a bad one, lets hope DP proves to be a good one.

I didn't ask for facts to back up your opinion. I asked for an idea as to how this benefits Latics. Not more than any other team, just a benefit in general.

 

To say that a manager can "use it" is not to provide a benefit, but to state the obvious. Also you complain about my negativity in not empbracing this rule change and yet in almost every post are exceptionally negative about Oldham as a town. Double standards?

[Delfer]

If you're only allowed to bring on 3 subs, you already know which 3 out of 5 are likely to be used.

 

How many times have we had someone like Lomax on the bench? No disrespect intended to the lad, but he's not going to be introduced after 67 minutes with an instruction to get on and change the course of the game is he?

 

Increasing the 5 to 7 means people travelling to places like Gillingham knowing full well that there isn't a cat in hells chance of them playing, even if they're on the bench. I would hazard a guess that the individuals affected would much rather be playing in a competitive reserve team fixture knowing that they can be at home within an hour of the final whistle.

 

 

Equally sticking the big centre back up front to replace the injured striker, then watching him score the winner is fantastic for fans.

 

 

Thanks for the numbers Delfer. What they show to me is that when the side looks like they might go up the crowds are bigger. When hope is diminished they're smaller. Now take it a step further:

 

1) How much will crowds increase by if a manager can name 7 subs instead of 5?

 

2) How much will costs increase by in the same scenario?

 

My answers are

 

1) Aboslutely nothing

2) A small amount

 

I fail to see the benefit to any football club in the lower leagues.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree over your analysis of the figures. What they show to me, and I do work with numbers, is that the general trend is downwards. Even more worrying is where we sit in the Lg 1 attendances and how much bigger they are in the Championship & Premiership. When you reflect on Joe's statement that this club deserves to be in the championship, then he ran a mile from taking the job you realise the dire situation we're in.

 

We can argue all day about this extra subs rule but I don't think that it will affect anything. I can understand people thinking it represents the big boys again but once more I don't think it makes much difference. There really are bigger fish to fry!

Edited June 14, 2009 by Delfer

[Delfer]

I didn't ask for facts to back up your opinion. I asked for an idea as to how this benefits Latics. Not more than any other team, just a benefit in general.

 

To say that a manager can "use it" is not to provide a benefit, but to state the obvious. Also you complain about my negativity in not empbracing this rule change and yet in almost every post are exceptionally negative about Oldham as a town. Double standards?

 

Why are you taking a difference of opinion so personally - grow up!

 

Yes I'm negative about Oldham but why does that stop me being positive about progress in football rule changes??

 

I don't see a particular benefit for a club but for the game in general which has been described by other posters - basically more choice to replace a particular player for a certain position.

[Ackey]

Why are you taking a difference of opinion so personally - grow up!

 

Yes I'm negative about Oldham but why does that stop me being positive about progress in football rule changes??

 

I don't see a particular benefit for a club but for the game in general which has been described by other posters - basically more choice to replace a particular player for a certain position.

Perhaps it's the way you adressed me? "Wake up FFS" isn't exactly conducive to an open debate is it? I have no objection to your negativity to Oldham. I do not, nor have I ever, lived there. I think the place is a :censored: hole to be honest. However you've quite agressivly objected to the negativity towards a rule change whilst maintaining an equally negative view of Oldham. It's hypocritical and frustrating.

 

However that is losing sight of the greater debate and so I will stop now to allow the thread to continue on topic.

[opinions4u]

We'll have to agree to disagree over your analysis of the figures. What they show to me, and I do work with numbers, is that the general trend is downwards.

But the way the team is playing is the major influencer of that trend. That suggests to me that all is not lost. Latics crowds increased last season. 15 other sides in L1 saw a decrease.

 

Even more worrying is where we sit in the Lg 1 attendances and how much bigger they are in the Championship & Premiership. When you reflect on Joe's statement that this club deserves to be in the championship, then he ran a mile from taking the job you realise the dire situation we're in.

There willlbe a mix of personal and professional factors linked to Joe departing. The club is in a better place for his cameo. God help us if he'd gone and got us promoted with that lot!

 

We can argue all day about this extra subs rule but I don't think that it will affect anything. I can understand people thinking it represents the big boys again but once more I don't think it makes much difference. There really are bigger fish to fry!

Given that the thread is about extra subs, if it doesn't make a difference to anything why the hell do it?

 

It increases costs in my view without increasing revenue. Therefore I oppose it.

Edited June 15, 2009 by opinions4u

[footy68]

If a Manager doesn't have enough options with 3 from 5 it's time to give up. IMO it only helps clubs with better financial clout, as they will be able to afford the extra costs, why not go the whole hog and have 11 on the bench? Surely then a Manager can have no excuses.....

[Delfer]

Well I never. it's been voted in and guess what? Latics voted for it. Dave Penney supports it and justifies it on the Official site.

 

If anyone needs a knife and fork to eat their humble pie...........................................

[opinions4u]

Well I never. it's been voted in and guess what? Latics voted for it. Dave Penney supports it and justifies it on the Official site.

 

If anyone needs a knife and fork to eat their humble pie...........................................

And here's the linky.

 

http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsU...1692616,00.html

 

Just because Latics / Hardy / Penney agree with it doesn't mean I have to though.

 

So no humble pie here.

[Ackey]

So no humble pie here.

None here either. I've justified my opinion with examples and ideas, I stand by those.

[Delfer]

None here either. I've justified my opinion with examples and ideas, I stand by those.

 

Good job it's DP who's our manager then, he seems to have some good ideas!

[Ackey]

Good job it's DP who's our manager then, he seems to have some good ideas!

Good lord yes. I make no bones about that!

 

Although he points out the advantage I did - that it's easier to appease players by telling them they're on the bench. So who knows? Maybe I could do it afterall?

[Stitch_KTF]

Picture this from Ryan Brookes point if view. tuesday night match away at gillingham, 18 man squad and you go all the way down there, warm up and then get told your not on the bench today lad, because that is what happens now, 18 man squad, 16 only for a match. i am sure players like him would rather have the oppourtunity to go on, instead of 7 hours down there on a coach .. get changed, jog about, without the chance of even playing, go and get changed, wait to watch the team, and then go back 7 hours after a totally pointless night.

 

Well, he collects a wage.

[opinions4u]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/8112406.stm

 

Southend manager not too keen.

[Ackey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/8112406.stm

 

Southend manager not too keen.

[beag_teeets]

I like this rule on Football Manager, on my bench I have:

 

A keeper

Full back (who can play left or right)

Centreback

Defensive midfielder

Attacking midfielder

Winger (who can play left or right)

Striker

 

Now if only real life was more like fm....

[Ackey]

I like this rule on Football Manager, on my bench I have:

 

A keeper

Full back (who can play left or right)

Centreback

Defensive midfielder

Attacking midfielder

Winger (who can play left or right)

Striker

 

Now if only real life was more like fm....

I'd be happy just to have one of each of those in our bloody starting 11, which is my point about this rule!

[Delfer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/8112406.stm

 

Southend manager not too keen.

 

Been bugging you 2 herberts that hasn't it?

[opinions4u]

Been bugging you 2 herberts that hasn't it?

Not in the slightest to be honest.

 

There was a debate amongst clubs. Latics backed the proposal and were in a majority.

 

There was a debate on owtb. Some supported the idea, some opposed it.

 

I thought it was interesting to see a view from within the game that differed to that of Latics, so I posted the link.

 

Is that ok?

Edited June 22, 2009 by opinions4u

[Ackey]

Not in the slightest to be honest.

 

There was a debate amongst clubs. Latics backed the proposal and were in a majority.

 

There was a debate on owtb. Some supported the idea, some opposed it.

 

I thought it was interesting to see a view from within the game that differed to that of Latics, so I posted the link.

 

Is that ok?

Am I the second one being refered to? If so, no it's not been bugging me. Like o4u I think it's a dreadful idea, but I certainly wasn't losing sleep over it.