egg

I'm not sure whether you're a tedious troll or what. Decisions from last season are completely irrelevant to your stupid argument that we are weaker with Cedric/Hoedt/Vokins in place of Targett. We aren't.

Your point was that having them around makes our defence weaker than last season. I don't get your rationale one bit. We'll have to agree to disagree with your assessment. To my mind nobody could seriously argue that Cedric + Vokins + Hoedt in place of Targett make us weaker in defence. Very odd.

They make us stronger because we didn't have them during the second half of last season. Do you seriously say that having Cedric available as an option at RB or LB makes our defence weaker? Seriously? Do you also believe that having Hoedt as strength in depth/an alternative to Stephens makes us weaker than not having him? I suspect you agree with me and you're just trolling - nobody can seriously say that our defence is weaker now than it was at the end of last season.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bertrand left of a back 3 with either Cedric or Vokins left wing back in some games. Not ideal but it gives extra quality, experience and pace back there.

Feck me, you're obtuse. We shipped Cedric out half way through last season so he was barely available for RH. He's a new player to RH this season. People (you I suspect if I could be bothered to look) slated Targett as not good enough. Cedric is no less able than Targett to cover Bertrand. He can cover RB also so unless you're arguing that him covering there ahead of Ramsey is not an upgrade then even you'd accept that RB has been strengthened. Vokins is a huge talent (and don't be a huge helmet again and ask me to define huge). Hoedt at least gives another option ahead of Stephens and injury cover so we're better placed. Our defence is better than it was for the latter half of last season.

Sophist, ha!! I have not stated any position as a "fact". Its you who refers to purported debt. Debt apparently taken by the owner in his personal capacity, but not secured against the club or its assets, is not germane to the club's overall financial position. You appear bright enough to understand the concept of 2 distinct entities, and that the club only has a debt issue when it a) has debt and b) cannot service it. I am in little doubt that the club has liquidity issues (re expansion at least), but I've seen or read nothing credible to point to the club itself having any debt concerns.

I agree that we're a long way from being comfortably top half, but how has out defence got weaker? We've lost Targett and gained Cedric (and Hoedt but that may not be a gain). Midfield / attack has gained Boufal, and up front we've added Adams and Djenepo. Looks like we've strengthened from front to back to me.

What's this debt you talk of? Back to the topic, if the kid is an upgrade then a loan makes sense, but any CB we sign surely has to be 1st team ready. A19y/o CB has to be very very good to step into a Premier league team.

Who gives a monkeys. He's had it.

Band

I'd be delighted with either Bakayoko or Drinkwater.

You're ****ing tedious pal.

Don't ask stupid questions. It's an opinion. Do you have an opinion on his season ahead, or potential generally?

No offence was intended. To me as a layman, the notion that a major sports clothing company cannot supply a shirt with a label that stays on makes no sense. Like you say thoug we don't know what the issue is, but my suspicion remains that it's not that UA can't put a label on properly.

He'll play a huge part this season. Pre season involvement doesn't dictate the season ahead.

Gotcha. We are where we are sadly, which ain't a great place!

That's his natural position but it looked at times last year that we were trying to convert him. The move makes more sense if he was going there to get game time in a different role, otherwise it looks like an acceptance that this is his level and he's putting himself in the shop window. From what I've seen he's a bit above the conference.

I didn't say anything about LD sports not permitting their logo to be attached to our shirts. The LD sports logo would not be sanctioned (by the club) to be applied to our kit if there was, for example, a sponsorship contractual issue. The suggestion that under armour cannot supply a kit with a badge that stays on is utterly stupid.

It's lower than he'll end up but it'll do him good playing at that level for 6 months. I'd be interested to see where they play him - perhaps he's gone to get game time at full back or wing back.

Do you really think that a clothing manufacturer cannot make a football shirt? Of course they can, the issue is elsewhere.

I blame Reed and Krueger rather than Koeman because this kamikaze transfer and contract fiasco happened on their watch not Koeman. Whilst he may have wanted a big squad, he didn't make us sign the ****e that we have, and give the ludicrous contracts that we did, after his departure. Blaming Koeman for our current mess is nearly as stupid as giving Forster the contract that he was given.

Agreed. I do not accept that UA cannot make shirts or apply / print a sponsor logo. It's a ridiculous suggestion. What I can believe is that the sponsorship situation has caused an issue with UA being instructed to apply / print a sponsor logo and deliver the shirts.

Is that right? There'll be ways around that - a loan fee in year 1 for an amount equivalent to 25% of the intended transfer fee, same in year 2, then a transfer fee for half of the true transfer fee spread over years 3 and 4.

I interpreted it differently and thanks for clarifying. The last part is encouraging.

How is it that yesterday you were saying that we're too skint to afford an assistant manager, but today you predict Upemecano to be our player of the year? Are we skint or do we have the dollar to sign that standard of player?