Chez

Money will be the main factor. No championship club would turn down the oppotunity to have him totally for free for example. A loan fee seems to be par for the course, but if we haven't already, maybe we ought to waive that. His wages may be too big for a lot of championship sides to take on in full too. There is little point in us loaning him out if his wages are not beign paid only for him to sit on the bench.

maybe when you are extremely close up to something it's ugliness is less easy to see?

Fair play to them for putting their money where their mouth is, but RB Leipzig aint getting him for £30m.

Adrian Heath. Nothing compares. I was young and defeats made me cry. Now old, defeats just make me laugh (not through happiness of course).

Fair point - and returning him would save a few bob, but equally it would be nice to at least attempt to break the Derby points mark.

beating slow and crap fullbacks in the championship wont necessarily improve his game. He needs to play against the best, every day in training and in games. Playing in the championship will make him look good, but we don't need to advertise his skills. Those are evident to all. He also doesn't need the slog of 50 odd games. So long as he is playing as part of the regular rotation of a big side, being at a bigger club won't hurt him. As you say, he ain't signing a new contract. The offers will come in during the summer and then its just a question of how much Saints are willing to accept. If we turn down all offers (which could happen if we ask for say £70m), then he will have no choice, like KWP last summer. No sure it will come to that. I ould imagine unless we sell this summer we wont have money to buy. As a reminder, despite all the sales last summer (approx £160m), we only spent £10m on Charles and £8m on Stewart.

Excellent news that he is fit and ready to play games. He can do nothing for us when injured, be that play for us, play games out on loan (so we dont have to pay his wages) and/or be available for a transfer so we can improve our finances. What we need now is a manager who typically wants to to try and get 30 passes in before the ball has left the 18 yard box to have an injured crisis at the keeper position.

Are Chelsea short without Lavia? Would be a shame if he was recalled when he has just got started for us.

He isn't on £1500 a week. When he rejoined Saints his scholar deal may have been for relatively buttons, but then he signed a professional contract the following year. He isnt signing a pro contact that lasts for four years for £1500 a week. does he need to develop physically? He's already more than built for PL football. Even if he wasn't, being in a lower division doesn't help you develp physically more than being in a higher division - they both have weight rooms. Why does he need to drop down a league to build confidence? He is not Adam Armstrong and needs to play against worse players. The lad is absolutely briming with confidence already. I agree that playing games regulary is important to keep developing, but he's been running rings around opponents and there is no reason why he wouldn't do the same playing for Bournemouth, Brentford or Brighton. Why not Everton, Spurs, Newcastle, Man United, Arsenal even?

FFS. Who do we even have to play wide left and right?

More like £25m to pay down debt and £25m to cover shortfall in income to pay wages of existing 20 crap players.

If he wants to stay he will stay. An agent can't force a move. He will be doing what any agent would do - create an alternative option that helps him get the best deal possible either from SFC or elsewhere. The Dibling family will be fully aware of his actions. This story about the Dibling family being at loggerheads with the agent is probably part of the plan to ensure the agent is the bad guy not the player.

almost anywhere. A season in the championship is going to be seen as a wasted season. It's never going to happen...unless our valuation is simply off the charts...but even then there are going to be clubs signing him to stop another getting him.

Spurs: "How about £100k a week?" die Mannyschaft: "nah, you'll aright thanks."

Not sure that is conclusive, but the fact is, its a loan until the end of the season, after that nothing is set in stone.

Yep, a real shame. He's one of the few players that gets you out of your seat. You just wonder if we had stayed up, if both he and the team might have grown together and who knows where that might have ended. There are lots of noises about leaving etc. (and relegation makes that seem pretty certain), but that's just the agent doing his job. In the end, if we stayed up and then paid him the kings ransom his agent would nto doubt ask for, he may well have stayed.

If this goal is anything to go by, he might make a reasonable Dibling replacement.

the Grundian suggests Chelsea, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Liverpool or Leipzig https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jan/23/football-transfer-rumours-race-tyler-dibling-southampton-five-way-race-january

I think we have seen both the best and worst of Aribo while he has been with us. At the levels we have played, I don't think there is more to get from him, but perhaps some of the good things are underapreciated.

I see. Makes sense...except the going rate (half way through a loan) seem to be changing. That's the bit that seems unusual.

He doesnt fancy another season in the championship? If this is true, then the rumours that he was still on £70k a week in the championship were utter bollocks. No way he leaves early for Besiktas - who aint paying him that. Is this a sales advert placed by SFC or his agent? Once we moved him back into a regular midfield role, he was very effective for us in the championship run in. He is extremely good at holding the ball up when opponents are tight to him, allowing others a little more time to move into space. He provided that `bravery' that WGS and the like want - a willingness to receive the ball in tight spaces and not just pass it straight back or flick in on. The only problem is that he's not really a centre midfielder. He doesn't cover the ground quick enough defensively. He does make interceptoons and put a foot in, but I am not sure he gets tight to pponents like they do to him.

I know he's our player and we can do what we please, but if this is true, I'd be a bit annoyed if I was Wednesday and Saints changed the goalposts/requested more money half way through the loan. Either we want him back (to play or provide cover) or not. Has this happened before (requiring a larger lopan fee)? I know players have been recalled and sent elsewhere (or sold) but thats usually because the first loan wasn't working out.

I think you may have missed the irony in my post OldNick.

Sure seems high, but City dont like getting their young talent away, so who knows. That said, any sell on percentage would be on profit not total.

The reports were that Chelsea had a sliding scale percentage of profits. The higher price we sold him for the greater percentage they got. He was sold for £32m plus £5m of add ons (apparently) and Chelsea got about £15m of that. They obviously also got £5m from the original sale to us too.