The obvious one is Glenn Whelan. He was on borrowed time already and is unlikely to feature again (although I am sure he won't retire). 

Another possible one is Will Smallbone. He had just started to get a run of games with Southampton. Might be difficult for him to pick up where he left off. 

A lot of clubs will be cash strapped next season. 

Is Long out of contract this season? At 33 he will more than likely have to drop down to the championship.

With Kenny coming in some of the senior players in the squad may need to start looking for a move, Duffy, Randolph, Coleman etc. Aren't guaranteed club starters anymore which can't be good for us

There is a lot of hype about Conor Noss (or Noß) coming off the bench both this weekend and last weekend in the Bundesliga. The problem is that he needs to be on it to be able to come off it. 

The big loss that I can see is that its halting the progress made by our emerging players like Connolly, molumby, knight, masterson this season.

Unless they’re Belarusian 

Yep, been following that and it's a bit silly.
Lad has never played in a senior game (bar pre-season, I believe) but with a flurry of games, I'd say he will make the bench in some..whether he sees the pitch is a different matter but fair play to him.

To a degree that makes sense. However this is the first time we have had a group of young players making a breakthrough at the same time in quite a while. I wouldn't be worried about the likes of Molumby or Knight who have a sizeable amount of games under their belts. The likes of Masterson and others who have only made a few appearances might find it tougher. It will also depend on how players react mentally to the situation. This will as you point out be applicable to all players but probably more crucial for younger players.

With young lads, we have a good few players with a lot of games under their belt but also many may develop been away from the club and the pressure associated with becoming a professional footballer. swings and roundabouts. 

Another possible one is Will Smallbone. He had just started to get a run of games with Southampton. Might be difficult for him to pick up where he left off. 

It doesn't really 

I'm thinking obafemi, kilkenny, connolly etc

That's a bizarre rule! What's the logic, other than they want to introduce it? 

It's temporary until the end of this season - Same in other leagues. It's basically to counteract the increased injury risk and the increased soft tissue injuries that have been seen in other leagues that have restarted already.

Why is there an increase of soft tissue injuries because of Covid?

It not because of Covid but down to the players not being fully conditioned in the way they would be after a normal pre-season 

1. A condensed game schedule

2. Decreased fitness following a prolonged break from training.

It's entirely unsurprising really, I'm not sure why it would cause a shock.

All leagues are adopting it. And for the PL to adopt if, 14 teams would have had to have voted for it which they obviously have. It's ultimately for player protection so for those clubs who maybe rely heavily on one or two players, this may actually suit them better.

It's only a temporary measure anyways. 

Honestly, I would say that's the point.

Its a fundamental change to a key rule, which will allow bigger clubs empty their bench, while smaller clubs, may, in a material sense, only have two or three options from the bench, while the rest are PL2 players. It alters the course of a game, in a different level to what was applied throughout the season.

Also, why 5? Why not 4? Or 7. How is it judged that this will give appropriate respite? 

If the "smaller clubs" (I'm surprised you can say that with a straight face considering EPL relegation fodder can often outbid former powerhouses on the continent...) are that hard up for players, it's likely their first 11 would be losing anyway regardless of how many subs are allowed.

Its relative, so it can be said with a straight face. The gap in resources between some promoted teams, or annual PL "also-rans", and the likes of Manchester City is eyewatering. I appreciate that there are numerous teams in Europe that have fallen behind, and are now being outbid, but that is a product of modern football, and the rush towards the "Champions League".

However, if the likes of City can rest a group of players, for a game, and not be bound by previous rules, that can have a material difference. Equally if clubs can bring on a player (who is number 4/5) who proceeds to score, or set up a goal, that would be something which would not have happened prior to the shutdown, so its occurring on different terms.

There is agreement on this, however, I still feel that it is problematic, as it has the potential to impact games, in a way that traditionally it wouldn't.

And if it was such an issue, why are most of these smaller clubs voting for this temporary rule change? 

Clubs can vote how they want. I still have an opinion on this, especially as I am still reticent to accept that the league should be back this quickly.

I would be curious about this too, but I guess we are unlikely to know.

So, if I understand correctly, you think this is a problem for small teams and they disagree - Is that the crux of it here? 

No breakdown of how many clubs voted against this in the PL statement unfortunately.

Like I said, I can disagree with them. I don't necessarily feel that I should take a great deal of notice of how football administers itself, in the current climate.

That would interest me less than why they voted for it. Perhaps it is altruistic.

Surely the "problem" you're referencing runs far deeper than whether teams can use 3 or 5 subs? You're speaking about the extreme financial differences between sides, which manifests itself in far more important and impactful ways than how many subs you can use...

Remember when Mick McCarthy made 12 substitutions in a friendly?

No. Hasn't even made the bench since the restart.