|
|
Post by DJ on Feb 21, 2007 13:08:51 GMT 10
Hey I heard a rumour that the FFA next year will change the ruling for short term contract squad replacements, anyone else heard this?
It's possibly changing from 4 weeks to 6 or 7 weeks?
This certainly makes it important to sign quality in your squad, plus it makes you play your U20's if your struck down with a few boys out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Feb 21, 2007 13:12:11 GMT 10
Also I read that next season your squad has to be down to a certain amount of players before you can sign short-term replacements.
|
|
Coaster
State League player
Posts: 262
|
Post by Coaster on Feb 21, 2007 14:26:00 GMT 10
Would this new rule for signing a short-term replacement be of benefit or a deterrent?
I don't get it, to be honest.
Also, on initial inspection, it would suggest that by the FFA keeping the "short-term signing" arrangement going, that they're not looking to put massive faith in the development of a 'reserves' grade, or youth league, for next season. 7 or 8 weeks might be seen as 'short-term', but it's a third of the regular season. Don't get me wrong, Mori was great for us during the term of his visit, but if there is a reserves grade in place, maybe we could have the choice of 4 of 5 replacements for an injured player..Just a thought..
But like i say, I'm not quite understanding..
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Feb 21, 2007 14:35:45 GMT 10
Is it a minimum 7 weeks? If so then would force clubs to play their squad/ u/20's for players who are out for a month. Which can only be a good thing.
|
|
Coaster
State League player
Posts: 262
|
Post by Coaster on Feb 21, 2007 14:40:00 GMT 10
Is it a minimum 7 weeks? If so then would force clubs to play their squad/ u/20's for players who are out for a month. Which can only be a good thing. I agree, if that's the case. Surely a club with a squad of 23, including u/20s, would look to it's younger members before looking elsewhere for 'short-term' signings - you'd *hope* thats how it'd work... |
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Feb 21, 2007 15:40:22 GMT 10
Are they changing the rule about like player for like player?
|
|
|
|
Post by LeedsMariner#4 on Feb 21, 2007 16:46:08 GMT 10
i think we are going to see quite a few rule changes for version 3
hopefully 5 subs will be able to be named with larger squads coming into force
i would also like to see players being able to be loaned out to get some match fitness
28 games in the regular season would be great
undoubtedly the short term signings issue needs to be looked at
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Feb 21, 2007 18:15:42 GMT 10
i think we are going to see quite a few rule changes for version 3 hopefully 5 subs will be able to be named with larger squads coming into force i would also like to see players being able to be loaned out to get some match fitness 28 games in the regular season would be great undoubtedly the short term signings issue needs to be looked at I hope the away shirt rule is changed as well. |
|
|
|
Post by LeedsMariner#4 on Feb 21, 2007 18:22:10 GMT 10
i dont mind teams playing in the away shirt, i dont agree with the fact that they have to if they are playing away from home
|
|
|
|
Post by DJ on Feb 21, 2007 19:19:16 GMT 10
Are they changing the rule about like player for like player? I seriously doubt that, but if Lawrie can get away with it just register everyone as a midfielder ;D Agree with dave too, I would like to see 5 subs next year with the bigger squads. This is the case for finals football why shouldn't it be the same for the regular season, it also gives the coaches more options. |
|
|
|
Post by omni on Feb 21, 2007 20:29:21 GMT 10
Ron Smith picked up on the 5 subs thing, so it's something at least one manager wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Feb 21, 2007 20:45:24 GMT 10
Id say initially they were thinking of saving that few thousandor numerous thousand bucks in airfairs. But the league is certainly in a position that 5 is needed, especially with larger squads.
|
|
skilbeck
State League player
aloisi johnny aloisi aloisi he's a mariner
Posts: 321
|
Post by skilbeck on Feb 21, 2007 21:26:56 GMT 10
i just hate the away shirt having to be white and The mariners seem to be unlucky in white at least this season with only 2 wins against new zealand. They should wear navy blue with bits of yellow and white when they play against teams that may be similar (Newcastle) .Otherwise they should be wearing the familiar yellow shirt
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Feb 21, 2007 23:23:53 GMT 10
they went well in white season 1
|
|
skilbeck
State League player
aloisi johnny aloisi aloisi he's a mariner
Posts: 321
|
Post by skilbeck on Feb 22, 2007 8:20:19 GMT 10
mmmm true but i reckon the mariners (as well as every other team) should wear their normal colours unless there is an obvious clash. in NFL, and possibly other american sports that are inferior to football, the away shirt is compulsory and this rule is a leftover from the days of black and white tv where one needed a light/dark contrast to identify the teams. as with blue, it is our second colour and therefore it should be featured heavily on the away shirt
|
|
|
|
Post by jazasydneyfc on Feb 22, 2007 8:58:43 GMT 10
Hey I heard a rumour that the FFA next year will change the ruling for short term contract squad replacements, anyone else heard this? It's possibly changing from 4 weeks to 6 or 7 weeks? This certainly makes it important to sign quality in your squad, plus it makes you play your U20's if your struck down with a few boys out? Makes sense with what I've heard. Definitely on the "only able to sign replacements if they are ABSOLUTELY needed", but have also had firming up of the 6wk rule. |
|
|
|
Post by brett on Feb 22, 2007 12:36:17 GMT 10
I think 4 weeks is a good number. Extending it is silly. The right rule to implement is that you may only make short term signings if you have 8 injuries. Making it 6-7 weeks as well...what if you have 10 players injured for periods less than that? You can't fill your bench yet you can't make any replacement signings? I don't trust the FFA to get it right  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Feb 23, 2007 12:26:22 GMT 10
I think 4 weeks is a good number. Extending it is silly. The right rule to implement is that you may only make short term signings if you have 8 injuries. Making it 6-7 weeks as well...what if you have 10 players injured for periods less than that? You can't fill your bench yet you can't make any replacement signings? I don't trust the FFA to get it right I don't think any Football administration can come up with a rule on this sort of thing that would satisfy every type of scenario. So I wouldn't be saying "I don't trust" 'em. Rather, they may err on the side of caution and the same problems with the short term signings rule may recur in v3. DJ's suggestion that Lawrie register everyone as a midfielder would be very cheeky but effective! |
|
|
|
Post by bikinigirl on Feb 26, 2007 9:51:31 GMT 10
I think 4 weeks is a good number. Extending it is silly. The right rule to implement is that you may only make short term signings if you have 8 injuries. Making it 6-7 weeks as well...what if you have 10 players injured for periods less than that? You can't fill your bench yet you can't make any replacement signings? I don't trust the FFA to get it right I don't think any Football administration can come up with a rule on this sort of thing that would satisfy every type of scenario. So I wouldn't be saying "I don't trust" 'em. Rather, they may err on the side of caution and the same problems with the short term signings rule may recur in v3. DJ's suggestion that Lawrie register everyone as a midfielder would be very cheeky but effective! . thought of this last year signing everybody as utility players . but then ffa would only say, for example, mori is not a utility player he is a striker - can't sign him . sign them all as out-field players, can they argue with that? |
|
