CanadaSaint

Has it been established yet whether anyone else has ever scored for England with their first touch?

I saw that article and was really pleased to read it. You're right - there has been acknowledgement of his broader contributions but IMO it has been far from universal. Another thing in Rickie's favour is that he's one of those "glue types" that can bind a dressing room together. There was a lot of genuine happiness for Lambert among the seasoned internationals in the England dressing room - and, as you said, even in Hodgson himself. It's hard to put a price on having someone with those qualities in a squad, and it's another advantage that Lambert has over Carroll.

The big thing in Rickie's favour is that he's now very much on the media's radar, which means that all the little things he does will be noticed more than ever before. We've seen them week-in, week-out, but the media have lazily focused mainly on his goal production. He has far more dimensions to his game than Carroll - while Carroll's contribution is largely at the end of the build-up, Rickie's exists at pretty much every stage. Once that's acknowledged, a big gap opens IMO.

They probably will. On Thursday morning. I saw that article and it's on the West Ham page, so a fair few of those voting for Rickie could well be WHU fans.

Unless we significantly improve our performance in the final third - our ability to create and take chances, I'd say that 8-12 is our likely finishing range. However, it's always interesting to see how others see us (be sure to view the poll results): http://www.cominghomenewcastle.com/2013/8/1/4577000/southampton-fc-saints-premier-league-team-preview-2013-14-rickie-lambert-victor-wanyama?

Some nice little link-ups just starting to show.

Friendlies are just as much about players playing themselves OUT of the reckoning as INTO it. For me, Jos must be fourth (or lower) on the CB depth chart, or we've still got a big problem.

Watching this, I'm not sure that not having a stream is a bad thing.

Duplicate post.

No, that was named after a former headmaster of Hythe County Primary School, and I'm fairly certain there was no link between them.

True, but if the player makes the payment of a commission to his agent a condition of agreeing to the move, it has the same affect. The agent's enforceability is not against the selling or buying clubs but against his own player, so the agent effectively has his own player by the nuts. The player knows that because he agreed to it when he established a legal relationship with the agent. How else could this situation of huge agent commissions - and deals scuppered if they're not paid - have developed? If clubs are willing to pay the big agent commissions, everything works out in the end and we see numbers like those at the top of the chart on the first page of this thread. If they're not willing to pay those commissions, as Cortese isn't, we see deals fall apart. There has to be some enforceability somewhere or else this wouldn't be happening.

I'm not sure about the legal technicalities but I'm sure there are ways to frame it so that it's enforceable. It just becomes a cost of doing the deal, whether it's paid by the selling club or the buying club. After all, so many "big player" deals these days seem to incorporate a cut for the agent. That's where this thread started.

When a player hooks up with an agent they obviously end up signing a contract. It seems that, increasingly, player/agent contracts include a clause entitling the agent to a percentage of any future transfer fees - paid by someone other than the player. So, much as everyone hates them, these are not so much greedy demands by the agents as legal entitlements. And the player is bound to them, too - even if it's not in his best interests. The irony is that the agents inject themselves into the situation to protect the players from the clubs, but take advantage of the fact that nobody is protecting the players from the agents. I admire Cortese's stands on this but it's going to cost us some good players until all the other PL clubs form a more unified front.

It seems to me that we're caught in a kind of void between what we are and what we hope to be. As a result we're trying to sign quality players who are reluctant to join a club of our current stature when they know they're good enough to sign for teams that are already where we are aiming to go. I'm sure that Cortese and Pochettino know this, which is why we are apparently chasing a number of similar players when we couldn't possibly afford to sign all of them. I'm prepared for some disappointments along the way - perhaps quite a few - but at least we seem to have started earlier this year, giving ourselves the leeway to keep plugging away until we get some quality biters. I hope everyone can accept that this is our current reality - without ripping Cortese for the failures and calling players arrogant c*cks just because they're (understandably) looking out for their own interests. Yeah, I'd love to see Lukaku here but Chelsea's response to an approach is likely to include the name Shaw. If that's the trade-off I'd rather keep Shaw.

And we are still paddling around in Pearce's neolithic era. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

I've always cringed at the thought of any of our youngsters playing for Pearce, and nothing's changed. I can't see any of them coming back as better players - far from it. Good thing Shaw didn't go IMO.

I can't imagine that this horrendous decision will last much past tomorrow. If it does it will become much bigger news in a hurry, and rightly so.

Strange to see us linked with Jesus Gamez. Either we have a shedload more money than any of us thought, or MP has a different idea of priorities than most of us. The other option - surely it couldn't be this - is that the Mirror is talking our of its arse. Again.

If we only had two, those would be my choices as well because our inability to goals from midfield (there were some easy chances missed) may well have cost us at least six places. But I think that this week's Cortese shenanigans were about bigger aspirations.

I wouldn't always blame slips on the pitch. In many cases - those involving Jos in particular - they result from failing to read the game quickly enough and being forced into sudden directional changes. Clyne slipped quite a lot early-season but less as he became more comfortable at this level.

Stoke are at a real crossroads. Their fans want to see better football, especially with "newer" PL teams coming up and playing with some style, but they don't have the players and it will cost a fortune to make the change. On the other hand, this current squad has shown that it is potentially relegation material. They're in the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" corner.

Did I hear correctly that Yoshida has been struggling for some time with a pelvic injury? If so, that answers the question that I've had for several weeks - why on earth would MP reunite the potentially disastrous Fonte/Jos partnership?

Considering that Pochettino imposed his style - and created a new identity for the team - without having even one player that he brought to the club, I'd say that 14th is highly satisfactory. If anything shows him to be a solid tactician and a top-notch man manager, that's it. The test for him comes now, because he will start next season with some players that he did bring to the club. I'm optimistic that they will fit his style better than some of our current starters, which augurs well for the fans but not so well for some of our current squad.

It said "Teddy". Anyone know who that is?

It's a lot easier to get the business done early if we're trying to sign players that no other teams are chasing. The high appeal and high value players always seem to take longer, and - frankly - I'd rather see us slug it out for real quality. Having said that, it's probably going to be easier to address the key central D problem, so I'd like to see that one done early.