rncfc wrote: This competition is a joke. I'd like to see us launch a new clown-themed strip specifically for these games and for our players to wear novelty boots and red noses.

Amen to that. It's #BTeamBoycott all the way for me.

Percy plunkett wrote:£10k should matter to us,it covers about half the wages this week or pay Flynn for a month with a bit left over.

After you've deducted the proportion of the WRU staging costs not covered by the gate money and the win bonuses, but yes £10k should matter to us.

I agree we should get all the free money we can get, but it has to be balanced against our league position.

Amberexile wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:£10k should matter to us,it covers about half the wages this week or pay Flynn for a month with a bit left over.

After you've deducted the proportion of the WRU staging costs not covered by the gate money and the win bonuses, but yes £10k should matter to us.

I may be oversimplify this, but isn't it a case of priorities. Given our finite resources (fit and available players) , which would appear to be less than most, surely the league has to be the priority, even given the potential financial benefit.

Amberexile wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:£10k should matter to us,it covers about half the wages this week or pay Flynn for a month with a bit left over.

After you've deducted the proportion of the WRU staging costs not covered by the gate money and the win bonuses, but yes £10k should matter to us.

I may be oversimplify this, but isn't it a case of priorities. Given our finite resources (fit and available players) , which would appear to be less than most, surely the league has to be the priority, even given the potential financial benefit.

This competition isn’t anything new.... and the way in which we approach it won’t be either.

I doubt Swindon are arsed about it either. It's a pity we can't just give them a call and say "how does 1 each sound?" and then not bother with the game itself.

I think that you have to have 4 qualifying out field players on the pitch throughout the match, though not necessarily the same ones.

Can that be right? It would mean not every sub could replace every starter. Insanely complicated.

Sorry I am wrong. I was confused by a strange wording of the rule regarding Full Available Strength. It says "Each EFL club shall play it's FAS in and during all matches". But then it says that FAS includes four qualifying players in the starting line-out. So despite saying "during all matches" it seems that you could replace three of the four with non qualifying players during the game.

Two years ago Bradford tactically subbed their keeper three minutes into a game to circumvent the rules.

G Guest wrote:Sorry I am wrong. I was confused by a strange wording of the rule regarding Full Available Strength. It says "Each EFL club shall play it's FAS in and during all matches". But then it says that FAS includes four qualifying players in the starting line-out. So despite saying "during all matches" it seems that you could replace three of the four with non qualifying players during the game.

If you read one of the other threads I've done a detailed breakdown of which players are "Qualifying" players, of whom we need to field 4.

We've barely got enough non-qualifying players to break the rules!

Though last night's side was about as inexperienced as we could get within those parameters. Only Pring, Cooper and Semenyo didn't qualify yesterday, so despite only picking (I think) just 3 players who started the last match we nevertheless fielded 7 qualifying players.

Nice workout for the likes of RW