James

The problem we have with replacing Puel is that it will undoubtably take our board a month or so to get the right man in which could (as it did last summer IMO) derail our preparations for next season especially given I am anticipating another huge turnover in playing personnel over the summer. If we are to replace him (and for the sake of long term progress I think we should) then I hope we do it soon after the season ends.

Agreed - Puel gets a lot of excuses made for him when we don't play well. It seems to be almost anyone else's fault but his. Thankfully even his staunch supporters have accepted that he f*cked it up tactically against Hull. He's got his tactics right against Liverpool this season and deserves credit for that so let's hope he can repeat the feat on Saturday.

Either Les or Claude Puel's dad.

Do you ever actually go to SMS? No shortage of fans questioning Puel around me and on the walk from the ground today.

If we could change it in the summer and bring in Silva then I would. I don't think we will though.

Personally I can't see us going anywhere under Puel far too many of these turgid, terrible performances. We won't sack him though so we will have to wait and see if he gets it right.

No we won't.

Gabbi off. Ridiculous. We need to f*cking score.

To me it's not lack of effort, we've just not got any bite in midfield to win the ball back. We saw against Bournemouth that a front three of Boufal, Redmond and Tadic means we get overrun in midfield. It's happening again today which suggests the tactics are wrong.

Just to be clear, you aren't attaching any blame to Puel for picking an unbalanced side that is allowing Hull too much time on the ball? Team selection and shape is all wrong, nothing to do with the players. That's the manager's decision and IMO he's got it wrong so far.

Shocking half. Hopefully our world class manager will turn it round at half time.

Garbage so far.

Renewed mine. Our season ticket sales are relatively slow at this stage every year. Nothing to worry about, it'll pick up.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/2806032/southampton-transfer-news-martin-caceres/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/southampton-sign-free-agent-martin-9776098 For example. Was relatively widely reported at the time. Could, of course, be BS.

Hadn't seen that, if that's right then fair enough.

Marco Silva was appointed on 5 January which was in advance of week 21 of games in the Prem. If you look at the form table since Silva took over Hull would be 8th. They were in the bottom three when he took over so he has clearly made a massive difference, to say otherwise is silly.

Let's hope that's right. The stuff we know about Lander doesn't seem to suggest they'd be a great fit for us but it does seem they are relatively far down the track (other bidders or not). What I do know from my line of work is that on deals like this you do sometimes as a seller progress things simultaneously and as far as possible with multiple bidders to create competitive tension and then decide which one to go with at a late/final stage (sometimes even where multiple bidders are ready to sign on the dotted line). Let's hope we are just conducting a competitive process and that there are in fact more serious bidders than Lander in the process that haven't yet been picked up by the mainstream media.

He's also reported to be on a very high wage. If that's not the case then I'd agree with you but if we are overpaying someone who is only good enough to cover our third or fourth choice CBs then its an error on the part of the club IMO.

There's entertaining them and then there's getting to the stage where they go through the fit and proper test (assuming that's true).

It's a pretty hefty price for a sticking plaster or precautionary umbrella (unless he really is on a pay to play deal). My view is that Stephens and Jones (again based only on the U23 games I have seen) are of a similar level (i.e. neither of them are ready but both are decent prospects for the future but aren't yet steady PL level players) and therefore, given that Caceres is considered by management to be below Stephens, there's not much point in having brought him in. Yes, I would still have thought it inadequate had we not brought anyone in but the mere fact of bringing someone in who isn't deemed better than what you have and who you aren't prepared to use doesn't improve things at all. If MC had been signed by Hull, was playing for them, helping them pick up points etc then that would prove he's a competent PL defender so yes people probably would have wanted us to sign him. The fact is that's a complete hypothetical as the club clearly don't think he's a competent PL defender, if they did we'd be using him.

Fair enough. Just a bit surprising, given the rate at which we are conceding goals, that he's genuinely considered not good enough. It was only a few weeks ago that Puel was banging on about being surprised by his fitness/quality. Maybe that was BS but either way we'd have seen him for a week or so in training prior to the work permit getting sorted.

We don't because he hasn't played. Only way to find out is to give him a go.

Fingers crossed they are serious investors looking to take us forwards. Haven't read a single thing about Lander that makes me feel positive about them.

It would be 'interesting' to know how many times Claude has used the word 'interesting' this season. Said with my tongue in my cheek as his English is a damn sight better than my French and at least he is making an effort.

Fair enough. My own personal view was that those players wouldn't get us enough goals and sure enough they didn't.