Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

Is it me or is there a sense of irony here. You get a player to sign a long term contract and then put a low value release clause in the contract!!! So how does that benefit the club? Economics of the mad house

which is why its utter ******.

Didn't that happen with Kante?

There might be a bidding war between clubs offering the player different terms, but FF is saying a bidding war could get the club "a lot more", which it won't.

Is it me or is there a sense of irony here. You get a player to sign a long term contract and then put a low value release clause in the contract!!! So how does that benefit the club? Economics of the mad house

Was thinking the same thing, makes no sense whatsoever. Give him a pay rise and sell him for a lot less than you would have done beforehand.

There might be a bidding war between clubs offering the player different terms, but FF is saying a bidding war could get the club "a lot more", which it won't.

What happens if 3 clubs meet the release fee? Presumably a bidding war breaks out? So who gets the proceeds? Us or Virgil. Upon reflection it could be Virgil which is why he was prepared to sign an extension? If that's the scenario Reed has been caught with his pants down and the agent is hoisting the for sale board.

What happens if 3 clubs meet the release fee? Presumably a bidding war breaks out? So who gets the proceeds? Us or Virgil. Upon reflection it could be Virgil which is why he was prepared to sign an extension? If that's the scenario Reed has been caught with his pants down and the agent is hoisting the for sale board.

If three clubs meet the clause, the player decides. Why would any club pay us more? Not difficult.

Pretty hilarious that you've decided after countless transfers with no release clause, we've definitely got one now and the club have been caught with their pants down and aren't they useless and rubbish and everything. Sack the board.

The other thing here is the actual source of the information. If the info was true and you were choosing a source, why on earth would you choose The People?

hilarious that you've decided after countless transfers with no release clause, we've definitely got one now

to be fair to FF he doesn't know the details but neither do you

For you to claim we've had no release clauses is a little naive

Well we will find out soon enough of this is true or not, i personally think there might be a release clause in his contract but 25m sounds too low.

It could be true tho, we know Virgil is included in the whole current football leaks saga. So maybe the Mirror has seen his contracts and is the first one to throw this out there. So far only a Dutch newspaper has publicized a few details about his contract (at least from what i can find) but well time will tell.

to be fair to FF he doesn't know the details but neither do you

 

For you to claim we've had no release clauses is a little naive

Well my problem is I'm just a ditzy little teenage girl with no idea of how the real world works like what you do. Please can you teach me.

If three clubs meet the clause, the player decides. Why would any club pay us more? Not difficult.

 

Pretty hilarious that you've decided after countless transfers with no release clause, we've definitely got one now and the club have been caught with their pants down and aren't they useless and rubbish and everything. Sack the board.

It was widely reported by credible sources (D Telegraph and Echo) that there WAS a release clause. Why you should find that hilarious and want to sack the board I don't know, but I really think you need to take a break from this forum because you are beginning to contradict yourself in the same post in an effort, presumably to be funny.

to be fair to FF he doesn't know the details but neither do you

 

For you to claim we've had no release clauses is a little naive

When Virgil signed his extension it took a lot of us by surprise as he still had many years to go but it was welcomed. At the time many said why would he commit himself to us for such a long time. Obviously his wages rose significantly but there is no way he would have allowed himself to be tied without a get out clause. That's just common sense (CB Fry apart). Now this news has emerged the worrying thing is that the get out figure of £25m is about half of what he is worth. I would bet a sizeable sum this is his agent's way of telling the world at large to start reaching for their wallets. Why CB should find that hilarious I don't know.

It was widely reported by credible sources (D Telegraph and Echo) that there WAS a release clause. .

For who?

To persuade him to commit to signing a long contract. I think this is a true story. However if two clubs start a bidding war we could get a lot more

He was already on a five year deal.

He was already on a five year deal.

Yes but was there a release clause in his original contract? I would hazard a guess there wasn't.

Well we will find out soon enough of this is true or not, i personally think there might be a release clause in his contract but 25m sounds too low.

 

It could be true tho, we know Virgil is included in the whole current football leaks saga. So maybe the Mirror has seen his contracts and is the first one to throw this out there. So far only a Dutch newspaper has publicized a few details about his contract (at least from what i can find) but well time will tell.

Unless their was a low release clause in the initial five year contract, it would be plain stupid to insert one in the six year contract, which was drawn up with four years of the initial contract still to run. But Saints never surprise me with contract cock ups. Who knows in six years time, 50m might be the average price of a run of the mill EPL player..........

Was told the release clause was for either ,barca,madrid or bayern and not 25m but 35m but we will see in jan i suppose

Only the hard of thinking would even consider it true that he has a £25m release clause.

Only the hard of thinking would even consider it true that he has a £25m release clause.

One good season effectively doubles your price these days and £25m would be less than that!

If it's true, we'd have been better off keeping him on his old deal!

There were definitely rumours of a release clause when VVD re-signed. If I was in the shoes of a person like Les, and negotiating a contract with a release clause, I would ensure that it is a summer release clause to prevent the mid-season disruptions inevitable with a January departure of an important player. A lot of the rumours in the press imply that he will be off in Jan, which ought to be a non-starter. Inserting a release clause at all seems like an awfully blunderous thing to do particularly when everyone knows that we sell players anyway and many teams regard Saints as a shop window team.

Why the hell would we 'tie' him to a new 'long term' contract which included a transfer clause allowing him to leave for less than he was already worth in the next transfer window?

Don't players get a % of the fee? So if Saints agree to sell VVD it is actually in his interests for us to get a higher fee.

This might even be a club leak?

Think about it, most Saints fans are now sick of us selling our best players every year and with the increased TV money and transfer profit from last few years we have no reason to sell anymore

The club however prioritise money over success (they've proved this) but know the sale of VVD will even annoy a few "happy to have a club" types.

Chuck out the release clause news and they can play the whole - "nothing we could do" card

They will assume that most fans are pretty stupid and won't say "well you idiots gave him the release clause"

It's a theory and with our clubs obsession with the bank balance nothing would surprise me.

This might even be a club leak?

 

Think about it, most Saints fans are now sick of us selling our best players every year and with the increased TV money and transfer profit from last few years we have no reason to sell anymore

 

The club however prioritise money over success (they've proved this) but know the sale of VVD will even annoy a few "happy to have a club" types.

 

Chuck out the release clause news and they can play the whole - "nothing we could do" card

 

They will assume that most fans are pretty stupid and won't say "well you idiots gave him the release clause"

 

It's a theory and with our clubs obsession with the bank balance nothing would surprise me.

I tell you what Heisenberg, you might just have something here. It all adds up when you think about it. I'm a bit annoyed to be honest but I'm still happy to have a club.

VVD was 1 year into a 5 year contract when he signed a 2 year extension. Why with 4 years left in his first contract would Les give him both a raise and a release clause? Why would he do it for 25 mil when, at the same time and in the previous off-season stupid money was being quoted for John Stones, an inferior player albeit with an English birth certificate? The release clause is so disadvantageous to Saints that it can't be true. I hope.

Les said this in the press release announcing VVD's new contract:

“At 24, and with significant European experience already under his belt, we believe he can be a key pillar in our squad for years to come, and we are delighted to have agreed this new deal with him.

“Although Virgil only joined us in September we felt it was important to strengthen our commitment and we believe this also provides further indication of how serious our ambitions are for the coming years.”

For me, these are either the words of a bullsh**er, or someone who did not incorporate a ridiculous release clause in the new contract,

For who?

Ah look he know I'll **** doesn't atcually know I'll shocker.

Remember ridiculing me one summer for e mere suggestion.

****ing *****.

Ah look he know I'll **** doesn't atcually know I'll shocker.

Remember ridiculing me one summer for e mere suggestion.

 

****ing *****.

I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about.

Bit of a fail by Saint-Fred right there.

We paid north of £12m with I believe a 15% sell on profit to Celtic. We sold Lovren for north of £20m and Puel is already talking of VVD being capable of being one of the top six central defenders in the world. Stones went to MC for about £50m and is nowhere near that bracket. I would be gob smacked if Saints knowing the market, how good he is would even dream of allowing him to go for £25m.

We may have a release clause. On the assumption VVD signed a longer deal with us, for significantly more money - I assume it is a larger one than we had when he first joined.

Year after year folk on here doubt the commercial nouse of our club, who apart from Alderweireld, have delivered year on year.

Some people really do believe everything they read in the tabloids, no wonder we ended up with brexit

To persuade him to commit to signing a long contract. I think this is a true story. However if two clubs start a bidding war we could get a lot more

He was already on a five year deal.

Yes but was there a release clause in his original contract? I would hazard a guess there wasn't.

I refuse to believe Les would be so stupid to insert such a low release clause if any at all. The £35m one to a club in a foreign league sounds more believable, anyway believing this as gospel is just very silly so what they said \/

=View From The Top;2426480]Only the hard of thinking would even consider it true that he has a £25m release clause.

Some people really do believe everything they read in the tabloids, no wonder we ended up with brexit

I will be embarassed if Saints were so incompetent to put such a low release clause into Van Dijk's contract.

Liverpool and Manchester City ready to pay full clause and make January transfer happen:

 

Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf have a big feature in their Tuesday edition on Virgil Van Dijk and all the clubs who are said to want him. There are different claims for each one, with Everton having the Koeman factor, and Liverpool and Manchester City are thrown in together.

 

Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp are said to be keen, as interest grows in the defender. Klopp has insinuated he’s not looking to make big changes in the winter transfer market, or any at all, but it wouldn’t be a great shock to see his position change.

 

Guardiola has had defensive issues at Manchester City and whilst he’s already added John Stones, faith in Nicolas Otamendi and other options may be lessening.

 

De Telegraaf say that for the past two months, Liverpool and Manchester City have had someone watch every Southampton match, to keep an eye on the defender. Pleased with what they’ve seen, the Dutch newspaper say both clubs are willing to put £25m on the table to sign him in January.

 

Van Dijk allegedly has a clause which allows him to leave Southampton for £25m, making it a reasonable price for the 25 year old and a relatively easy deal to do.

 

Making his name at Celtic, Van Dijk has shown since signing for Southampton that he’s got the ability to play at the highest level, and he’s now also a regular Dutch international.

 

There are often clauses reported for footballers which are incorrect or don’t exist at all. In English football it’s rare for players to have release clauses, whereas in Spain and Portugal every player has a buyout amount.

Source: http://sportwitness.co.uk/liverpool-manchester-city-ready-pay-full-clause-make-january-transfer-happen/

Key word here is allegedly

Surely (surely) we are not incompetent enough to have a £25m release clause - surely

If that clause is true then its a 30m fail ultimately.

If there is a £25m release clause it will only set the maximum fee that we can ask for him but that doesn't mean that he is automatically released. The club could refuse to release him and hold him to the term of the contract. It also doesn't mean that if there is an auction the club couldn't take a much higher fee by setting the bidders against each other. The Saints hold his registration and he can't join anybody until they agree to transfer the registration.

I see Pochettino is denying that Alderweireld has a £25.4M release clause in his contract. Interesting that it's the same figure as being banded about for VvD.

I always thought that a release clause meant the minimum that a player could be let go for so once he was off he would then be sold to the highest bidder ???

If there is a £25m release clause it will only set the maximum fee that we can ask for him but that doesn't mean that he is automatically released. The club could refuse to release him and hold him to the term of the contract. It also doesn't mean that if there is an auction the club couldn't take a much higher fee by setting the bidders against each other. The Saints hold his registration and he can't join anybody until they agree to transfer the registration.

Assuming it's a release clause, there is no reason for a bidding war or auction. Clubs will only compete with each other by offering the player more generous terms - that obviously benefits the player but not the selling club.

If there is a £25m release clause it will only set the maximum fee that we can ask for him but that doesn't mean that he is automatically released. The club could refuse to release him and hold him to the term of the contract. It also doesn't mean that if there is an auction the club couldn't take a much higher fee by setting the bidders against each other. The Saints hold his registration and he can't join anybody until they agree to transfer the registration.

Not correct, a club has to accept any offer that matches the release clause and the player is entitled to talk to that purchasing club. Thats what a release clause is.

If there is a £25m release clause it will only set the maximum fee that we can ask for him but that doesn't mean that he is automatically released. The club could refuse to release him and hold him to the term of the contract. It also doesn't mean that if there is an auction the club couldn't take a much higher fee by setting the bidders against each other. The Saints hold his registration and he can't join anybody until they agree to transfer the registration.

If it sets "the maximum fee we can ask for him", how do we then "take a much higher fee by setting bidders against each other"?

I thought this release clause thing was made up media rubbish?

I thought this release clause thing was made up media rubbish?

That's why the word IF is being used hth

I thought this release clause thing was made up media rubbish?

There's not been a decent source I've seen yet.

If there is a £25m release clause it will only set the maximum fee that we can ask for him but that doesn't mean that he is automatically released. The club could refuse to release him and hold him to the term of the contract. It also doesn't mean that if there is an auction the club couldn't take a much higher fee by setting the bidders against each other. The Saints hold his registration and he can't join anybody until they agree to transfer the registration.

A Release Clause stipulates the minimum fee, not the maximum. Fundamental mistake there. It also isn't used to automatically trigger a transfer, it is a figure that will ensure that the Club has to allow the potential buyer to offer a contract to the player. He of course can still accept or otherwise the offered contract and the actual transfer fee can be agreed to be higher, for instance if the player is not persuaded by the contract on offer. If there is a Release Cause in Virgil's contract (which personally I doubt) this does not mean that is how much we would get if he left, it simply means that the club has no option but to allow a discussion to take place.

A Release Clause stipulates the minimum fee, not the maximum. Fundamental mistake there. It also isn't used to automatically trigger a transfer, it is a figure that will ensure that the Club has to allow the potential buyer to offer a contract to the player. He of course can still accept or otherwise the offered contract and the actual transfer fee can be agreed to be higher, for instance if the player is not persuaded by the contract on offer. If there is a Release Cause in Virgil's contract (which personally I doubt) this does not mean that is how much we would get if he left, it simply means that the club has no option but to allow a discussion to take place.

Why would any club pay more than the minimum?

A Release Clause stipulates the minimum fee, not the maximum. Fundamental mistake there.

Nope, it is you with the fundamental mistake. There is no need for any club to offer more than the release clause as meeting the release clause means it is automatically accepted.

I'm told tonight that Liverpool have no interest in Virgil Van Dijk despite what Dutch papers say #lfc

Above from a reporter in the telegraph with 100k followers

@Matt_Law_DT: I'm told tonight that Liverpool have no interest in Virgil Van Dijk despite what Dutch papers say #

^ Interestingly not from Chris Bascombe at the Telegraph who is the usual Liverpool reported of choice.