| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Euan |
Posted - 20 March 2012 : 18:52:45
I read in the local paper today that Craig Brown has made 9 changes to his 18 man first team squad since he arrived and it made me wonder how many players should there be in a first team squad. Is 18 about the right number? In an age when cutbacks seem to be the order of the day is it better to have 18 reasonably well paid players and some kids or to spread the cost around to have slightly less well paid players but maybe 20 or 22? |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| alanrey25j |
Posted - 20 March 2012 : 21:52:51
If sustainablequote:
Originally posted by alanrey25j
Injuries,suspensions, i'd think 20/22 a better option in our case as we dont appear to have many upcoming youngstersquote:
Originally posted by Euan
I read in the local paper today that Craig Brown has made 9 changes to his 18 man first team squad since he arrived and it made me wonder how many players should there be in a first team squad. Is 18 about the right number? In an age when cutbacks seem to be the order of the day is it better to have 18 reasonably well paid players and some kids or to spread the cost around to have slightly less well paid players but maybe 20 or 22?
|
| alanrey25j |
Posted - 20 March 2012 : 20:28:22
Injuries,suspensions, i'd think 20/22 a better option in our case as we dont appear to have many upcoming youngstersquote:
Originally posted by Euan
I read in the local paper today that Craig Brown has made 9 changes to his 18 man first team squad since he arrived and it made me wonder how many players should there be in a first team squad. Is 18 about the right number? In an age when cutbacks seem to be the order of the day is it better to have 18 reasonably well paid players and some kids or to spread the cost around to have slightly less well paid players but maybe 20 or 22?
|
| islaydarkblue |
Posted - 20 March 2012 : 19:55:18
I understand that SPL teams can have up seven substitutes sitting on the bench. |
