Matthew Le God

Stephens is 5 months older than Stones. Neither of them can really be considered youngsters anymore.

The three amigos!

Perhaps you should have read the rest to see it in context. Of course Bale is light years ahead of Redmond now, but when Bale was 17 years old he wouldn't find it easy displacing senior first team players like in 2006 when he was competing in the Championship for a starting role.

Again, I doubt it. I think Redmond would still be preferred over a 17 year old Bale, sure Bale would have been good enough for the first team squad but I doubt he'd be starting as first choice. Plus of course it wouldn't have taken Bale long to become first choice, but it was easier for Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Lallana etc to get Saints 1st team games when we were not in the Premier League. Our youth players need now to go on loan to build up to a level where they are good enough for the first team in the Premier League.

The club made the choice for Stephens to be a first choice player. He did come from Plymouth, but Stephens played a season for Southampton academy under 18s & the under 21/23s so that makes him a Southampton & Plymouth academy product.

How have you figured that out? Shaw left in 2014, my hypothetical is a 17 year old Bale at Saints in 2018 would struggle for games at left back due to Bertrand.

My hypothetical scenario was if we had Bale aged 17 now in the Premier League rather than Championship, Bertrand signed 4 years ago... at which point this version of Bale would have been 13 years old. So why wouldn't the club have signed Bertrand?

They would have found it harder. Bale broke into the side as a left back when we were in the Championship. If Bale was 17 and at the club now he'd be competing with Bertrand and Bertrand is currently better than Bale was when Bale was 17.

Of your example players... - Oxlade-Chamberlain did not play for the Southampton first team above League One - Bale did not play for the Southampton first team above the Championship - Walcott did not play for the Southampton first team above the Championship - Shaw played for the Southampton first team in the Premier League because we were a newly promoted side, he was exceptional and the competition was Danny Fox - Lallana gained experience through multiple seasons with us in the lower league and didn't play in the Premier League until he was into his early 20s - Dyer did not play for the Southampton first team above the Championship Why have you written off the current academy players? Targett, Ward-Prowse, Sims, McQueen, Stephens have all had good exposure to the first team and others in age groups below will likely do the same and gain experience on loan before reaching the quality level required for Premier League football. The quality bar is now higher to reach our first team, so where as in League 1 or the Championship a player might make the first team in their teens they now have to be exceptional to do so in the Premier League whilst a teenagers. Due to the rise in first team quality many young players will need to gain experience on loan int he Football League and may then be ready for us when they are in their early 20s.

Saints & Leicester were top 6 as recently as 2016.

Is this a serious suggestion? He has had a failed drug test, doesn't turn up to training and is on a massive barren spell of not scoring a league goal for years. What makes you think he has a 20 goal season in him? He is a mess of a player!

Can you name another European league that has better quality in the bottom 14 of a 20 team league? This is the squad that finished in 17th in Spain... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_Legan%C3%A9s#Current_squad They would be blown out of the water by any Premier League team for wages and transfer fees.

That is simply not true. If multiple clubs offer the release clause then they will all be automatically accepted regardless of what Celta Vigo want to do, it is then for the player to pick.

Dross compared to what?

"Terrible" when compared to what?

Those clubs sacking a manager or not renewing his contract in the summer do so because they think the current one is underperforming with their current resources. That doesn't mean the league isn't strong.

Why does a lot of teams changing the manager mean the league isn't strong?

The Telegraph in 2016 reported that Emery has been interested in Saints. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/06/04/ronald-koeman-agrees-to-become-everton-manager-as-southampton-tu/

It would be daft not to at least explore interest from other managers and possibly hold interviews, as long as we are quick in making a final decision. Hughes clearly has an advantage in that he has essentially had a successful 8 game probationary period.

Look in the mirror!

If this is a serious suggestion then... wow just wow! Alderweireld wants to leave Spurs because they don't pay him enough. If he leaves it'll be to a Champions League team for wages of £180,000+ p/w.

It is ridiculous to think a club in the top tier is going to sell 10+ players in a single summer. It just doesn't happen. The **** up of the managerial appointment was the main problem last season, not the squad quality. Hughes showed this squad if managed well is capable of performing to a good level, Pellegrino however was completely out of his depth. Pellegrino stifled the squad, Hughes has shown it is possible to get a lot more out of them, mass changes are not required, 3 or 4 new players will do.

Based on what is it 'very likely'?

I don't see how anyone can be so definitive about it, we don't know what their options are. Plus they did get one managerial appointment very right.

Can you really say that with confidence without knowing who else may have applied for the role or been approached?