VectisSaint

It's not actually as clear cut as that. Training compensation is due when a player moves either during or at the end of his contract. If he was offered an extension and declined it then it is almost certain that training compensation is required to be paid by Celtic. Also as the transfer is international it makes it more likely. All that said, because there is no fee and because he was only at Saints for 3 years, the compensation payable is not likely to be very much, St Joseph's should also get a cut, as they should have done when he signed professional for us. This is what I can make out of the varoous legal stuff rated to this that can be found on the Web.

Thought Ralph didn't drink

Would be very surprised if we let him go. Did well when he came on yesterday. We're not exactly strong in central midfield. Of course he could go to Scotland but this sounds like someone trying to make up a story.

What was his yellow card for? Haven't seen it mentioned.

No limit, but higher rate taxpayers can only claim the difference between the basic rate and their marginal rate, so not as tax efficient for high earners as you migh expect.

That was before the Burnley game.

Didn't really fulfil the promise, did he.

They aren't out of Europe. Europa League.

Messrs Bramall and Young proved right.

Haven't rested many.

This was a report by the AAIB. Not by an interested party.

Bury should be allowed to fold, and their FA Cup results expunged, especially the 1900 final. Retrospective award to the beaten finalsists.

Well you got that right.

Well, apart from Feyenoord and Preston.

He was partly at fault for the 2nd goal as well, both Vestergaard and Bertrand were not picking up the Burnley strikers' runs.

Have to call you out on this. Yes, offiside in various forms dates from the codes of football played at Eton and Harrow, and pre-dates the split between rugby and association football, but the various rules or laws varied greatly between the various codes and were influenced by other laws such as not being able to pass forward (not just rugby but in the original draft rules of association in 1863). Sheffield rules had no offside rule at all. They had players called "kick-throughs" positioned permanently near the opponent goal (goal-hangers as we used to call them when we were playing kick abouts with jumpers for goal posts). The offside rule was included in the original laws of the game in 1866, but was fundamentally changed in 1925 when the requirement for the number of defenders was changed from 3 to 2 and this resulted in a huge change to the game, where goal scoring increaed hugely. Changed again in 1990 to say a player was onsied if level with the last defender. Bottom line, offside law now is nothing like what it was in the 19th century, and is most definitely there to counter the tactic of goal hangers or their proper name, kick throughs. The most important point though is that the law was never meant to be based on the precision that is now being demaded with VAR - that has really only come about with the change in 1990. I don't recall people referring to daylight between defender and attacker, but the point is that the attacker should not be offside unless he is gaining an advantage. Having a tone nail ahead of a defender gains no significant advantage. It should be left up to the referee and lineo to determine if a player has gained a significant advantage or not and not by some video enhanced technology. I'm in favour of VAR for most apsects, but its application to offside is just fundamentally stupid.

Who are these people that are saying Rohl is a huge loss? Looks to me like something you have made up. He may be a loss, who knows, certainly Ralph was keen to get him in last season, so you'd think he thought he would be a great benefit, especially when he was given a 2.5 year contract. Ralph seems to think that Fleming is an adequate replacement, time will tell, though I'm not sure that Fleming brings the same to the coaching team as Rohl did (they were both defenders in their brief playing days but other than that the comparisons are hard to see).

Craig Fleming was a defender (and is the replacement for Rohl).

There is a lot of blame going on against several players, some of it justified, but in the end the real issue so often is that our midfield (including our wing backs or whatever they are called) are not closing down enough and protecting the back line. Yes our CBs and keeper are making a hash of things at times but we invite the opposition on so often. Second goal yesterday case in point, no one in the middle got anywhere near their players. Happens too often, JWP, Hojbjerg, Valery, Bertrand all hugely guilty.

Almost word for word what I posted a while back on offside, totally agree with you. The current interpretation of offside is a nonsense, it was never intended to be used this way, and the boys and girls at IFAB need to go back and review the law and its interpretation. VAR should never be involved with offside.

Season long loan with exclusive option to buy though. No one can honestly say or think that KD after about 20 Bundesliga games and St the age of 20 is better than what we already have, even Ralph. Dream on if you think he is going to be the answer to our prayers this season, however good he turns out to be.

Missing Danny Rohl

Oh its a case of hate with many posters on here, believe me. Your opinion which you're welcome to is that he's not good enough, Ralph's opinion is that he is. Whose opinion holds most weight here?

Not that old chestnut again. FFS.

The team sheet suggests Stephens on the right and Bednarek on the left. But last time Bednarek played on the right he had a mare. Hoping Bednarek actually plays right with Vestegaard left and Stephens centre.