egg

Silly question. I would not want FF as our back up keeper under any circumstances.

Err, so you'd have had Mccarthy playing all cup games too, with FF on the bench? What would have happened if/when McCarthy got injured - would you really be OK with FF stepping up? I wouldn't.

Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.

I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.

Quite.

He was excellent but you're a whiny tool.

What's the basis for the suggestion that either a) Fraser is or has been unwell, and b) that he's taken a pay cut. Or is it baseless SaintsWeb b0ll0x?

Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

That's probably right but if nothing will actually happen from 30/3 if there's no backstop, it makes the EU's lack of flexibility on the backstop issue a farce. In May's shoes I'd call their bluff - be sensible on the backstop or it defaults to no deal and we won't impose a border. The ROI won't implement one.

I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen. Will Britain impose a hard border? If not, will the ROI? If not, will the EU? My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.

So what does Trimble say wi actually happen if we leave on 29 March without a deal? There will be no backstop. We (Britain) will not implement a hard border. What actually happens on that situation? Do the ROI or EU impose a hard border in contravention of the GFA?

Thanks, and that's how I see it.

Can someone please help me with a basic that I appear to have missed. As things stand we leave on 29 March on wto terms / no deal. The main issue with the May deal is the backstop / Irish border. I get all of that. I also get that the EU say that if there is no deal then there will have to be a hard Irish border, but that conflicts with the GFA. However, what I do not understand is what the ROI / EU will actually do if we go on 29 March with no deal. If we say, nah we aint imposing a border cos of the GFA, what then happens? Who imposes the likely ill fated border? Surely not the Irish who want a united Ireland.

The timing will be in the contract. I'm guessing that Nantes may have committed to a replacement with another club waiting on money from them, then another club in turn etc. This is a tragic episode, and whilst Nantes insisting on the cash could be seen as insensitive, they wouldn't have to demand it had Cardiff paid it. I'm struggling to understand Cardiff position on it to be honest - the investigation has nothing to do with Nantes or the contract to pay. The fault is with Cardiff here, not Nantes.

I'd agree with that. He's decent and has performed well, with a few assists too. That said, I'd prefer a fit and motivated Bertrand in that position. LeG explanation above kind of conflicts with the comments re the radio solent piece though so I'm none the wiser why he's absent.

His absence doesn't make a lot of sense. He's our best left back, and arguably our best defender. I get that RH expects high fitness levels before players are selected but Austin is fit enough for the bench and is staggered if after 3 weeks or so of training RB is no fitter than Austin. A bit weird.

Why's it dim? He was sold to Cardiff. Payment has to be made as per the contract.

We all know that we didn't sign anyone. We all know that you think that we should have, you keep saying. We are where we are, so who rather than Slattery do you say should have played against Burnley.

Did they want him?

Fair point, and he's better off playing some competitive football rather than u23 football.

That's disappointing and doesn't cover us in glory. Dropping into league 2 is a retrograde step for Hesketh and won't help him develop. I don't see him as a premier league player but he's certainly not a league 2 player.

He's always been a real talent, and the most likely of the current crop to make it. He did well against Burnley and will continue to improve. He's got a big future.

I wish people wouldn't quote the idiot, defeats the purpose of having him (at least that particular log in) on ignore.

Ha! Fair point although is Hart is decent.

Seems that way. I've never known a keeper make such a difference to a team.