New DDSL 35 man squad rule???

fozzy30 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:21 pm **Posts:** 54

edwirdo - i said premier league not gateshead league , as far as i know we can sign on as many as we like , after a certain amount( would guess 30) we have to pay £5 per registration

like i have said dont careless about the rule , was just debating it and its worth , and still no one has an answer to its worth.

marron04 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:20 pm

on the shed wrote:

i think the fa are pushing for it mind

The fa had given leagues the option and ddsl wernt interested and rightly so.

Edweirdo · **Joined:** Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:44 pm **Posts:** 206

fozzy30 wrote:

edwirdo - i said premier league not gateshead league , as far as i know we can sign on as many as we like , after a certain amount( would guess 30) we have to pay £5 per registration

like i have said dont careless about the rule , was just debating it and its worth , and still no one has an answer to its worth.

Ah right, thought you meant Gateshead prem. See what you mean now though and its a good point. I don't care much about the rule either, but can see the good and bad points of it. It would work better if you can actually de register players and replace them, yes it would create more admin but only for the people at the FA, I'm sure they can afford it.

thepacifier · **Joined:** Thu May 19, 2011 7:51 pm **Posts:** 17

if you can de-register and sign new players then there is no point having a cap at all. Clubs could simply register 35 players at the start of the season then replace them as they wish.

marron04 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:09 am

Yes but the proposal was a cap on 35 players!
There is a difference between de-registering/transferring a player and staying within the 35 player cap and signing 50+ players.

From the leagues point of view this rule change will mean less income for player registration, im sure in past seasons any player reg after the 30th player costs £3

I cant understand why clubs sign 35 players straight off at the start of a season, i have been involved at the Barley Mow and Pelton Buffs for over ten years and every season you know from pre season who your core players are the 12/13 that will play 95% games, yes there is work/injuries/holidays but surely out of a squad of even 30 you can field an 11! Yes some unreal circumstances that all the lads are at a wedding the night b4 etc if that is the case put in a request to postpone the game with due notice or do as most clubs do, get an 11 out in any state.

Having managed the buffs for a few year previously i knew exactly who i could count on then had ten lads signed for back up, no idea why clubs need in excess of 35 players signed on.

daftladguy · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:44 pm **Posts:** 189

fozzy30 wrote:

edwirdo - i said premier league not gateshead league , as far as i know we can sign on as many as we like , after a certain amount( would guess 30) we have to pay £5 per registration

like i have said dont careless about the rule , was just debating it and its worth , and still no one has an answer to its worth.

Im positive its a tenner a player, after the initial 30/35.

NETParkFC · **Joined:** Tue May 18, 2010 8:18 pm **Posts:** 309

In the DDSL registration is £3 regardless of how many players you sign. The only registration that increases is the transfers.

Maz - Barley/Pelton are both top Sunday sides who have good players wanting to play for them like most Premier teams. You'll find that the majority of the teams in the other four divisions are 'pub teams' made up of friends and local lads. So these teams have lads come and go for various reasons hence why they have loads of lads signed on.
I don't think any team signs 35 players on before the start off the season, I think we sign about 20 on max the others are lads who transfer to us, want to play etc etc.

On The Shed - DDSL were approached by Durham FA about the rolling subs but they declined to use it as they are strongly against the idea. DDSL have introduced the rule of having 7 substitutes with 5 from the 7 been allowed to play.

Aycliffe FC - So there are now 40 odd players from Hetton available to sign this season!!! there was last season and the seasons before that as 40 odd players didn't play a single game for them last season SO why didn't Aycliffe or any other team go and approach these players and transfer these players to play for your Club??? You'll find the reason is that the majority of these lads don't want to play regualr Sunday morning football in the DDSL they are signed for cover and emergencys.
So there isn't going to be a bigger pool of players available!!

Edweirdo · **Joined:** Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:44 pm **Posts:** 206

thepacifier wrote:

if you can de-register and sign new players then there is no point having a cap at all. Clubs could simply register 35 players at the start of the season then replace them as they wish.

Well there is still a point of having a cap, cos in theory, the player you de-register now comes available to sign for other teams. Whether that happens or not is another story but still...

If nothing else, it will make clubs think more about which players they do sign. Ryder may well be right in suggesting that the surplus of i.e. Hetton Lyons players above the initial 35 are lads who are signed as cover etc, but i suppose that Pelton/ Brandon proposed this with the intention that every club is on a level playing field in terms of the resources at their disposal. Hetton (again just used as an example - not a pop at them) may be able to afford to sign another 30 "emergency" players on that may play once a season. Other clubs such as ourselves coudnt afford to spend £240 to sign 30 players as cover so were stuck with the lads we have signed on to play and the smaller pool of cover players. You may say well get those lads to pay themselves to sign but who's gonna pay £8 to be signed as cover? The further you get up the divisions, the more of a challenge it is to get money from lads at all, we all know that some of them want paying for the privilege of playing.

marron04 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:13 am

Edweirdo wrote:

thepacifier wrote:

if you can de-register and sign new players then there is no point having a cap at all. Clubs could simply register 35 players at the start of the season then replace them as they wish.

Well there is still a point of having a cap, cos in theory, the player you de-register now comes available to sign for other teams. Whether that happens or not is another story but still...

If nothing else, it will make clubs think more about which players they do sign. Ryder may well be right in suggesting that the surplus of i.e. Hetton Lyons players above the initial 35 are lads who are signed as cover etc, but i suppose that Pelton/ Brandon proposed this with the intention that every club is on a level playing field in terms of the resources at their disposal. Hetton (again just used as an example - not a pop at them) may be able to afford to sign another 30 "emergency" players on that may play once a season. Other clubs such as ourselves coudnt afford to spend £240 to sign 30 players as cover so were stuck with the lads we have signed on to play and the smaller pool of cover players. You may say well get those lads to pay themselves to sign but who's gonna pay £8 to be signed as cover? The further you get up the divisions, the more of a challenge it is to get money from lads at all, we all know that some of them want paying for the privilege of playing.

Finally

CGT · **Joined:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:33 pm **Posts:** 6

Despite all of the comments regarding de-registration that was not an option in the rule that was proposed. Nor was the issue of being able to replace players who transferred out.

Whilst I can see both sides of the arguement the one point that I think will prove to be irrelevant is that fact that some teams will have "spare" players available for other clubs. Whilst you can argue for and against the idea of a maximum of 35 in an attempt to ensure that all clubs are on an equal footing the reality is that those excess players from the likes of Hetton CC and Kelloe WMC will not sign for anyone else in DDSL as they generally play for teams in other leagues and only turn out in exceptional cirumstances such as the All England Cup or when there are issues regarding midweek fixtures. Many of these players don't even live in the area normally covered by DDSL so the idea that they'll sign for someone else is actually laughable.

Given what the proposal was, and the fact that no-one tried to put forward an amendment in advance of the AGM (you cannot put forward an amendment at an AGM) the choice was simple. Clubs were advised that the impact would be that they could only sign on a maximum of 35 players in a season and that transfers out could not be replaced. Whether the clubs listened or not I don't know - or even if they'd looked at it and thought about it in advance - but they made the decision by a small majority and I understand that a number of clubs have already been in touch with the league expressing their dismay at the decision.

Frankie01 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:51 am **Posts:** 203

Totally agree with CGT. Can't see any "spare" players as they have been labelled signing anywhere else.

And regarding the roll on roll off subs, I agree with Maz...would be ridiculous and if that got brought in I think all 35players Would pack in!!!!

Like playing U10s again!

NETParkFC · **Joined:** Tue May 18, 2010 8:18 pm **Posts:** 309

CGT wrote:

Despite all of the comments regarding de-registration that was not an option in the rule that was proposed. Nor was the issue of being able to replace players who transferred out.

Whilst I can see both sides of the arguement the one point that I think will prove to be irrelevant is that fact that some teams will have "spare" players available for other clubs. Whilst you can argue for and against the idea of a maximum of 35 in an attempt to ensure that all clubs are on an equal footing the reality is that those excess players from the likes of Hetton CC and Kelloe WMC will not sign for anyone else in DDSL as they generally play for teams in other leagues and only turn out in exceptional cirumstances such as the All England Cup or when there are issues regarding midweek fixtures. Many of these players don't even live in the area normally covered by DDSL so the idea that they'll sign for someone else is actually laughable.

Given what the proposal was, and the fact that no-one tried to put forward an amendment in advance of the AGM (you cannot put forward an amendment at an AGM) the choice was simple. Clubs were advised that the impact would be that they could only sign on a maximum of 35 players in a season and that transfers out could not be replaced. Whether the clubs listened or not I don't know - or even if they'd looked at it and thought about it in advance - but they made the decision by a small majority and I understand that a number of clubs have already been in touch with the league expressing their dismay at the decision.

I totally agree (if you look through all my numerous post on here thats more or less what I saying, or trying too :lol:

) This is a suggestion, do you not think that maybe the league should have given out these details to all the Club Secretary's before the AGM about the implications that this rule and others could bring. I know you said this on the night then Graham posted about it on the website.
This way all the clubs could of had the time to think about this rule before deciding and others before deciding which way to vote at the AGM. Anyway I just hope that this rule has no affect on any of the clubs in the DDSL.

I hope the committe took note of what Lawrence from the Davy Lamp said at the AGM that people who were sat next to and beyond the bar could not hear a word what Peter and yourself were saying due to the noises coming from the fridges. A microphone and a small amp will be of little cost.

Felix · **Joined:** Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:14 pm **Posts:** 433

marron04 wrote:

on the shed wrote:

i think the fa are pushing for it mind

The fa had given leagues the option and ddsl wernt interested and rightly so.

our league thankfully voted against this anarl.

did any league actually vote the roll on roll off in?

marron04 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:41 pm

Durham alliance has voted it in havent they, load of sh*t

peggy mitchell · **Joined:** Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:35 pm **Posts:** 157

The roll on/off subs will be introduced to all county cup competitions next season.

New DDSL 35 man squad rule???

Who is online