egg

He needs to go on loan but I can't see it happening as it leaves us with only 3 cb's. Unless there's a free agent on his way.

I'm not so sure. I know of an out of favour player some years ago who was denied a loan. He had a bonus linked to games played. A few games on loan would have put him over the games threshold and triggered the bonus. He also had a standard pfa contract which said that if he was injured in the field of play then every game he missed with that injury was deemed an appearance. If our contracts contain similar clauses it may explain why so few players go out on loan.

Quite. As I said above, he's about 6th choice now. If we won't subsidise a season long loan we may as well move him on until January and have him playing/in the shop window in the meantime.

Not at all. You keep those that are likely to be called upon. You potentially keep those you may have to call upon. You don't need to keep those that have no prospect of being called upon - it hinders the player and makes no commercial sense.

Why on earth would you want him to not play for us but receive a full wage? How is that better than someone else paying part of his wages and him maintaining form (and value) by playing football elsewhere?

Sadly that's the saints way now and a factor in why our younger players aren't off playing league football to gain experience. Makes no financial or football sense.

Pretty sure he missed a year injured so is playing catch up. No idea if he's any good though.

I would imagine that the contract will define what counts as an appearance. Nonetheless he's probably about 6th choice LB now. Clyne, Fox, Shaw, Seabourne and probably Reeves are all ahead of him.

I reckon saintgarrett is close although butters is likely to play rb. I also think reeves will play lb in either this game or for the ressies today.

Tin hat time. I don't think shooting as such is his problem, but rather that he's generally a little bit slow to react and execute. That's been evident ever seen I started watching him as a nipper and is the factor that has prevented a very good player from becoming a top player.

Cheeky sod! The existent rule is the 25 man one. It will say what constitutes a 25 man squad. I'd love a link to that please.

I remember his debut for the ressies at staplewood, he looked like an excellent keeper. I'm pretty sure that with a decent run of games earlier in his Saints career he could have become our number one for years to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see him move onwards and upwords from notts county, he's way above that level imo.

I mean the 25 man rule to get clarification of how the squad has to be made up. The fella above says there is no rule about the keepers which suggests he knows the details of the rule. There is confusion over this and I for one would like to know if we have squad capacity for a free agent or two

Link?

Whats your point? Isn't it fair to ask if Davis is the only one to blame?

this is really tenuous. I agree that there is a difference between playing to lose and paying someone to try a bit harder to win. on balance I don't like it. it eliminates fair play and thus is indirect match fixing through the back door. I expect (and hope) Mr laudrup to have a trip to the FA and a need to find his cheque book. I expect better from young and supposedly bright managers.

Maybe! We've only named 1 keeper but apparently 3 have to be named so we forfeit 2 places so are at a notional 25.

So about as much as Butland played before he turned into a 6m+ England player? If the lads good enough, he's old enough. Don't get me wrong I'd rather throw in an old head but our options are Gazza or a confidence shot Davis. Given that Adkins only has a choice of a rock or a hard place he ain't got much choice but to try the lad.

short, fat and mental?

To be fair there's pages of ****e on there, I'd much rather read a single thread than trawl through that. It's very plausible that he could start. Davis looks shot to pieces. I have a gills supporting mate who reckons the lad is a top, top keeper.

I don't think recalls can happen where there is a loan fee paid. I would be surprised if he went without a fee. Also, I'm not sure we can add him (or anyone ) to our squad. He's 22 so would have to be one of the 25 but he isn't. Only free agents can be added (if there's room) and he's not one of them. Also our squad has 23 named players but only one keeper but we have to name 3. My understanding is that we therefore lose those 2 additional spaces meaning we have no space. I'm not certain of these rules though and i hope that I'm wrong. No doubt someone will be able to clarify.

The financial ramifications of relegation, and inevitable loss of our best players, mean that unless results (forget performances, they don't get you points) improve then NA will be gone. I really feel for NA as I have little doubt that he hasn't got the squad that he wants. I also can't see how anyone else could get more out of the group of players we have. That said, I'm in no doubt that if NC fires the gun he'll do it early, perhaps within the next month.

To answer the question, two things. They bought wisely and didn't change their formations.

Ads needs to get himself dropped to our bench, might get a bit of England game time then. Ffs.

Ah just what we need, a square peg in a round hole.