Matthew Le God

Of course it isn't, as he won't be an Arsenal player if it is a loan. You can't sell a player you haven't signed permanently When the loan expires I the summer Cedric is free to leave.

1) I'm puzzled how a disgraceful for 3/4 of the season team can have 31 points and be 9th? 2) It isn't a weak squad, now playing in a system and formation that suits them they have a good chance of a top half finish 3) Sure some extra quality players would be nice. But getting the new recruitment man as the club have said will arrive in the summer is key to any future transfer strategy. Spending money before he arrived and in an inflated January market isn't a good idea

9th in the PL and a sustainable transfer model isn't something to be mocked. This squad is fine for the rst if the season. The summer will see a new recruitment backroom staff appointment it is then the best time for squad surgery, not the inflated January window.

I think Ralph will pick it

Thrashing them twice in one season would be something to gain.

Bertrand was older than Wslker-Peters when he signed for Saints, so it isn't a like for like comparison.

1) If he forced his way into the Spurs team they wouldn't be selling him 2) Selling him does not mean they don't think he has potential

Why? Plus... if you aren't registered to play in the original game then you can't play in the replay.

Has3nhuttl has stated on a number of occasions that the appointment of Richard Kitzbichler was the Danny Rohl replacement.

I still don't think Stephens is that great, he is a huge drop in quality from what we've had before. I've always been happy with Cedric, Redmond, Long and Ward-Prowse.

I'm puzzled how you've connected criticising him to mean someone wants him to fail. I want him to be good... he just isn't.

I hope not!

Playing at centre back isn't going to improve his ball control, technique, passing, heading, decision making etc. Playing right back rather than centre back partly excuses him... but not completely.

Not sure why that is funny. If you play a team with 4 defenders, one of them is struggling and you focus your attacks on him then that is exploiting the weakness of the opponent. It is still attempting to exploit the weakness even if the score is 0-0. Spurs were able to expose Saints on the right side due to Danso... that is exploiting whether it was a goal or not it helped them during the game.

What exactly is wrong with it? Do think he looks comfortable on the ball and has good technique and positioning? Those things should be in place regardless of playing out of position at right back. He simply isn't very good.

It still counts as exploiting his weaknesses if you target his side of the pitch and build attacks due to the weaklink playing there.

And what is that supposed to mean?

Playing at right back isn't really an excuse for his lack of technique or football brain.

They did in that lots of dangerous attacks came from Danso **** ups. Ok they didn't score from them all, but he was still by some distance the weakest link in the Saints team and it caused a lot of problems for us today. Playing at right back only partly excuses him, he just isn't very good.

Kevin Danso won a cereal box competition to be a footballer! Him playing at right back doesn't fully excuse him, he doesn't have the technique or football brain to play at this level. He looks completely out of his depth and Spurs were exploiting it throughout the game.

The money wasn't paid before the transfer happened in the summer of 2019.

I didn't say I was in any way offended. I said it was a pathetic joke to wish a potentially fatal disease on someone for merely being a **** football club owner.

Not word for word, but he did ask if we can hope he gets a potentially fatal virus. Pretty obvious wanting him dead that was the meaning behind the 'joke', or else just wish someone gets regular flu.

I acknowledge in my post that he considered it a joke. My point was it is pathetic to joke about wanting people dead for merely not investing in a football club. Of course as the Grim Reaper... you clearly disagree.

Is it now acceptable to 'joke' about wanting people dead? Ok, he may be a **** owner, but it is pretty pathetic to want him dead.