The9

I'm sorry that a two braincell concept is too difficult for you.

I have a feeling he won't. Caulker is a right sided CB, Yoshida left sided, so Caulker is the natural replacement for Fonte.

He said Rodriguez had a problem with his feet, which wasn't true, but was understandable due to his lack of understanding of the nuances of English. What makes you think this is any different?

You mean like every version for about the last 15 years? I haven't bothered. I haven't actually played it for more than about 5 matches since 2005 anyway, just spent hours and hours creating players and teams and lower leagues, only for the game mechanics to not have anything inbuilt to prevent amateurs all changing clubs basically every year, despite this not actually happening IRL.

Even I've never claimed Yoshida isn't good enough to fill a gap against the likes of Villa or Bournemouth. Whether that's good enough is another matter.

And what about when he's got a recurring head injury which needs to heal but the rest of him is fine?

Hardly anyone makes the actual fees available nowadays, there are a load of end of contract deals without fees, and there are all kinds of additional payments based on appearances and internationals as well, so it's not an exact science and there are probably a load of (wrong) assumptions in there too.

Or "just had a less serious injury after playing without problem for 3 months" depending on how you want to look at it.

There are a heap of reasons the squad won't be the same, that's absolutely a throwaway comment. Even Cedric aside, Pelle is available, Fonte apparently is not - plus whether we play with the 2 defensive mids who started against Man City (and didn't play well) must be a consideration too. About the only thing I'm sure of is that Reed and Seager won't feature even on the bench as they played yesterday.

Oh here you go, turnover figure is listed around that amount from around then. Clickbait says you won't go and see what the actual profit was. http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/southampton-football-club-ltd

Well here's something from 2002 saying we made £3m before tax, so I am deducing that even considering a Cup run the figure of £48m we "made" is utter codswallop. http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/saints_proud_of_profits_60602/index.shtml It mentions the squad being insured for £30m, so maybe that horrific Saintsfootballericide incident of 2002/3 had something to do with it.

I think he's as bad at CB as at RB and he's not improved enough, so his bad starting point (he somehow managed to be bad at left back too before playing CB) is entirely relevant. Because if he'd started like VVD he'd be allowed to make a couple of errors (as Van Dijk already has) and still be good enough.

One good one and a mostly ok one to play against only bottom half sides should be ok? That could be either of the other two.

Aside from the obvious nonsense about referees making decisions for the smaller club which is the total opposite of everything all the cumulative evidence over the past 100 years suggests from football all over the world, I quite like this nonsensical bit: ‘The referee’s reasoning was he (McNulty) was looking for it. My view is that, if there is contact in the box, you are able to look for it. ‘If you are the wrong side as a defender you have to leave the player. Except there was widespread criticism of the ref for giving a penalty for Swansea's Ayew tripping over his own feet after brushing Bournemouth's Francis a couple of weeks ago, and a similarly ridiculous penalty against Ashley Williams for running into a "balancing on one leg and not trying to run at all" striker a few weeks before that. So basically, no, it's still not ok to dive if someone makes contact with a player accidentally, in the box or not. Also amusingly, the picture to illustrate the "foul" seems to show the Skate (in black) fouling the Carlisle player, not the other way around.

Well, one of the problems of having a bigger ground than your opponents and more people in it is that it costs more to maintain. Add to that the ancient infrastructure they're forever postponing upgrades to and they have all the usual problems on hold. Trouble with fans is they want fan stuff like winning matches NOW, and only want fan stuff like a not-dangerous stadium when it's actually directly dangerous to them in person.

Says to me that he's backup and is only better off there than here because we're actually trying to win the League Cup and probably wouldn't have given him a game in the tournament this season.

Cedric, Yoshida, Martina, McCarthy (when not on loan and playing CB for Wycombe). Didn't we play Fonte there at one point earlier in the season too? How many right back options do you need?

Have player with injury problems, solution? Sign player with injury problems.

Caulker did alright on Saturday, best game for Saints by some distance. First time he's looked like anything other than a panicked hoof-merchant, looks like the indoctrination and time spent away from QPR's relegation side has done him some good. Which is not to say I'd prefer him to a fit Fonte.

Used to be Portsmouth Poly, became a university in the early '90s like so many others, when UCCA and PCAS merged to create UCAS and someone decided that muddying the waters around the value of academic degrees by letting anyone claim to be a university was somehow a good thing to do because then the government could claim the numbers attending university were increasing. Which is a very good way of confusing things for employers who have no idea if your University has a 400 year history of academic excellence in the Classics or used to be an art college for people with D grades when it comes to sifting applications for jobs later on. As someone who went to Southampton's proper university (not the Chimpstitute like Steve Grant or lecturer Justice Mike) I completely have a stick up my backside about this. FWIW Portsmouth was already (just) a Uni when I scored against them for Southampton University in 1992 but I have no idea what they're supposed to be good at. At least Solent have decent sports science facitilies.

Yes, but you lose half your options if you can't comfortably use both feet, especially at full back where anything forward has to go one side or the other of the player who is usually in front of you and closing you down, because the other options are "off the pitch" or "inside to CB/keeper". With only one strong foot that's exactly the sort of prevaricating which puts you in the position Yoshida was in on Saturday for the first goal (not that his right-footedness was the issue there).

Just a side-effect of the usual lowest common denominator voting, any defender who scores must be great, even if they're not, and people only remember key high-profile incidents not all of the little things which have a greater impact overall. Villa offered even less of an attacking threat than Bournemouth, and Agbonlahor who was mostly on that side looked like he'd eaten a house, so there wasn't too much to do defensively, and it was a good shot.

I can see us struggling to move the ball through midfield and reverting to long balls to Pelle pretty early on. Could be like the Midtjylland away game all over again. Then again, if we start like we have done in a lot of recent home games we could be a couple of goals ahead and Liverpool might decide to focus on a different competition... they can't keep the pressing game up indefinitely, we all saw under Pochettino how teams who use it too much fade with multi-match weekly schedules.

I feel the need to add this for some reason.

It's about what Saints fans were paying for an ST in L1 five years ago. So it is not cheap compared to other STs. The main question is "how many of their ST holders are wangling themselves concession rates of more than £100 less?".