Professor

With a week having passed since the window closed its good to see that the club were true to their word. No key player was sold and the sales made were players with no future here. Not a perfect window as it does seem an attacking midfielder was wanted but a deal couldn't be made. Wonder if that means we can expect one more player coming in ,January.

What I think is that this is a pointless thread encouraging unfounded speculation for no purpose.

Understand the suggestion about demonstrating integration but I don't think the manager will use his subs bench in that way. All the subs must be ready to play and possibly, even from the first 5 minutes in the event of an injury. On the other hand, Pellegrino will be aware of the potential for a hostile crowd reaction to Van Dijk, which could affect the player's performance so he may want to take that into account. Although it would have been far better if this situation had never arisen it is now an interesting problem to have. We have the former young England CB in Jack Stephens, who performed extremely well stepping into the breach since January and we have a choice of 3 full international CBs just back from world-level competition. It's now as if we have acquired a top CB from the market for £50m or more, a figure that would have broken our transfer record by a multiple of at least three. As soon as he's match fit, the pressure will be to shift the others around in order to accommodate him. Maybe this is why football managers are also paid high salaries.

Like the way the club did it with no fuss. Can't prevent the media making a story of it but must be best for all if it's kept low key.

Even though a goal up, they still don't play like a team in the final third. The forwards look too keen on shooting from a poor position instead of setting someone else up.

Forwards are failing to pass for a shot on goal despite other players being better placed. Instead we've seem too many futile shots. Is this a selfishness in the team caused by the praise heaped on a goal scorer being worth more to them than the result?

I agree with those who say not everything has gone right under Les Reed but it seemed reasonable to counter the unjustified phrase used for the thread title. One of the problems for a club like Southampton that is trying to punch above its weight, is that it can't compete financially for established World-class players or big-name managers so has to look at lower cost recruiting. We see the club getting people who may be on the way up but natural consequence is that if they succeed here, their ambition makes them want to move upwards, as they see it. People may say we are being used as a stepping stone which may sometimes be true in which case it presents the club with a challenge to try to deal with. Of the 5 managers who have been and gone since administration, 2 have increased their reputation on the basis of Southampton's achievements and were poached for higher pay by clubs with more money. Two, who looked as if they wouldn't move us on, were let go and one (Pardew) left, it was suggested, for non-football reasons. The current manager was again an appointment out of left field of someone without Premier League experience but with a very strong CV. When it comes to players we can't afford the tens of millions that allows the wealthy clubs to pick off the best players already performing in the Premier League or in the top overseas leagues and it could be said we have tended to go for B-List players, but ones with potential. Sometimes the promise isn't fulfilled and as fans we can all point to some of the failures, but some perform extremely well, in which case the challenge is to hang on to them. That, it seems to me, is where the current policy is aimed and it does mean that the core of the squad is protected against poaching. If the policy has allowed us to keep our best player, widely described as the best CB in the Prem and still tied to us for five more years, it can hardly be called a failure.

It would be a shame to let this thread end on a negative tone. Under Les Reed, the club has been signing its players on 4 or 5 year contracts or extending existing contracts. It's been well documented that Van Dijk is contracted until 2022 so if in due course he doesn't agree a further extension, the club can still expect a fee for him if he is held until 2021 or he could be allowed to leave for free in 2022 if he still wanted to after being here for 7 years. Other key players such as Soares, Tadic, Austin and Long are under contract until 2020, whilst Bertrand, Boufal, Redmond, Ward-Prowse and Romeu are signed until 2021. The Club's current practice indicates that if such players are wanted for longer, they will be offered further extensions when contracts are within one or two years of ending. Generally, it looks like players who don’t extend, will stay until they have just a year or two years to go while they will still command a fee. The sales of players such as Wanyama, Schneiderlin and Mané contributed to the media calling Southampton a selling club although the facts of each don’t support that:- Wanyama was signed in 2013 on a 4 year contract. With one year left in 2016 he refused a contract extension and was sold to Spurs for a fee. If he had been kept for another year he could have left for free. Morgan Schneiderlin signed a 4-year contract extension in 2013. Spurs attempted to sign him in 2014 but Saints refused to let him go. He was offered a 5 year extension in 2015 but wouldn't sign so was sold to Man U. With two years left on his contract the fee was significantly higher than if he had been retained until his final year. Mané was signed in 2014 on a 4-year contract. He was offered a contract extension in 2016 but refused to sign. As a result he was sold to Liverpool for the £34m when, like Schneiderlin the year before, he had just two years left on his Saints' contract. One sale that does seem to buck the trend was selling Lallana to Liverpool for £25m in 2014. The player was on a contract until 2018 and could have been held to it. Perhaps the fee was regarded as exceptional but the outcome was that it led to unrest amongst other players including those who left in the next year or two. Perhaps that was the period in which the club saw there was a lesson to be learned. We know that longer contracts are being used and contract extensions offered earlier for players the club wants to tie down for longer. In 2018, Austin, Soares and Tadic will have two years left on their contracts so further extensions might arise but Bertrand will still have three years to go and Van Dijk, four years, so there's no reason to expect any changes for them for some time. For those signed until 2021 and Gabbi who’s deal runs until 2022, there’s no reason to expect any moves if the player’s form holds up. As we've seen with the Van Dijk saga, the club can't stop a player who decides to kick up but it doesn't mean the club will concede and it has shown other clubs as well as our own players, that the image presented by the media wasn't correct. Under Reed, the club has said it will only sell a player when it is in the club's interests to do so. It seems that is saying it like it is.

The club is doing OK, firstly by conducting its discussions with the player in private. This has denied the agent any ammunition with which to attack the club. The relationship with the player is entirely governed by the contract which is all that needs to be pointed out. Future events are completely unknown, making it impossible to commit to any future decision. In the next five years it might never be in the club's interests to allow early termination meaning that the player may be here until 2022. Van Dijk could continue saying he doesn't feel up to playing or pretending to play badly but if so, it's likely he'd have to achieve his incredible ambitions playing for the under-23s. The club has indicated it will wait for him to come to his senses and with time on it's side, it's difficult to see the club changing that stance. Reintegration into the squad must be the most probable outcome but giving the club, and the player, the problem of how to overcome hostility amongst the fans.

He might HAVE heard of them but he won't 'of heard' because you can't 'of' anything. What has happened to the teaching of English?

Since Marcus bought the club the Board has gone through changes but at every stage has continued to preside over achievements. The appointment of Claude may have been one weak spot but it arguably done for the best of reasons with the Europa League and his experience of managing squad rotation. When the appointment didn't work out the Board showed it was prepared to act. Other manager appointments from outside England have resulted in two ex-Saints' managers now being well-respected in the Premier League. The leadership shown by Ralph has been excellent and he has shown that provided you understand the sporting world and organisational management specialist knowledge of football isn't essential in the top job. As for Les Reed, he has grown into a role that few would have predicted 7 years ago. His management of player recruitment has been excellent. We are one of the best performing clubs not located in one of the big cities, London, Manchester or Liverpool. Provincial location is a disadvantage as we tend not to pick up nationwide supporters but have to rely on our local area or people with links here. As a result, commercial income is harder to generate, a factor that impacts on what we can spend under FFP rules. But the Board have managed that very well, especially with the Academy, and are clearly looking for international sources of commercial income. This is a fairly long reply to the question in the opening post but rather than just to state my personal faith in the Board, it seems right to give some explanation as to why I am one who feels it's right to support them,

Agree, please close this thread. There are no rumours, only self-generated speculation by a few trolls.

Why would anyone hope he goes to City. He is a Southampton player on contract until 2022. If he refuses a further extension the club could sell for a fee in 2020 or in 2021, but as he only cost £13m they could decide keeping him until 2022, was still money well spent. As I've suggested elsewhere, he won't know himself at the moment how he will feel after he's played for us for 7 years. As Saints' fans we should hope the club sticks to its policy indefinitely.

A website under the name of empire of the kop claims that Klopp will ' aggressively' target Van Dijk in January and next year on the basis that for Klopp it's Van Dijk or no one. On that basis it seems Liverpool would have to consider playing with 10 men. The word 'delusional' is over-used these days but it is illogical to think that Southampton will decide not to keep its player after having demonstrated that the decision was final. Even some Saints' fans seem to think that one more season is good enough. Why on Earth do they think that when we have the player contracted for another 5 years? Under the policy as now stated, we should expect that players are only going to be sold if it suits the club to sell them, which for a player who doesn't want to extend his contract could be when there is one or two years left to go if the club want to get a fee for him, although we shouldn't rule out a player being kept to the end of his contract. Van Dijk could be here until he is 31 when he will have served Southampton for 7 years. Even he can't know if he'd still want to go after that. It's only some died-in-the-wool fan saying Klopp will be aggressive because Klopp himself will know that if it becomes public knowledge that he's trapping up again, his club could face sanctions.

Buying yet another striker isn't the only way to address the need to score more goals. Working with what we have is a perfectly good option because the front players we have are good quality but need some direction which will be coming from the manager and coaches. Once we start putting away more of the chances that are being made, opinions will change. The great success this window is the club standing firm on its policy of only selling players it wants to sell, or when a player who will not extend a contract is down to one or two years. The media were virtually unanimous in saying we would have to sell Van Dijk while TV was full of pundits and ex-players who think they know it all, just proving they know very little. That has been the great success for the club and for more stability in the game. Even if Van Dijk refuses to co-operate the club can let him spend as long as he likes kicking a ball around on his own, right through until 2022 if necessary because eventually he will have to conform or see his career come to an early end. When he does play for us, this year, next or whenever, he will still have only cost the £13m that we paid Celtic.

And just to underline that refusing to sell now doesn't imply the club will agree to sell in the future. That contract to 2022 is still a contract to 2022. A good price can stil be obtained by keeping the player until 2020 and if the club is satisfied to let the contract run out on the basis that 7 years of service is well worth the comparatively modest fee paid for him, he could still be here until 2022 when he will be 31. It's impossible to say today what the football world will be like then so there isn't much point in trying to predict what will happen that far ahead.

To those who have been critical of Les Reed by claiming he might do what he clearly said he would not do, will you be as quick with your praise when you see the club has stood by its stated policy.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, even opinions that are baseless and illogical. Good management does not involve making unenforceable promises of what you will do at some future date when you don't know what the facts will be at that time. Every player on the books could be sold in January or next year but we have been told it is now club policy only to sell players they want to sell. Personally, I support this club, have done for a very long time, and I prefer to believe that it is honest in the statements it makes to the supporters. My opinion isn't worth much either but it is that VVD will only be sold if at some time in the next 5 years, the club decide it is in their interests to do so.

A little bit of philosophising. Take it or leave it. Because they are good at football, we tend to overlook that top players are, in the main, still young men and that many of them have limited life experience. An ability to show good judgement and take reliable decisions comes with greater maturity but for quite a few players that doesn't happen until their playing career is over. In the average workplace, people the age of football players would still be in junior roles not yet trusted to do anything really important. With life-changing riches available at such a young age it's understandable that some struggle to handle the decision making and become commodities for agents who are far wiser in the ways of the World. However, club executives are also experienced in dealing with these situations and will do what they believe is best for their club. With all that has happened at Southampton FC since the club reached the Premier League, surely anyone would concede that our executives have certainly gained experience. Although some fans will disagree with some decisions, overall the club has achieved a lot for one not based in any of the big cities. The Van Dijk saga must have been a surprise to our board, because he had been tied down by the club's long contract policy. It was made worse by opportunism from the Media dropping in the names of the big clubs that they use to help sell newspapers or TV advertising. That the player was not for sale was made clear at the outset and was repeated, and we can be sure it was made clear to the player. But at 25, he is still a young man and he can be forgiven if his inexperience of life outside football led him to be influenced by people with their own motivations. The reality is that Southampton could keep him for another three years and when his contract has two years to run could sell him on at the age of 29 for a decent fee if he was still performing well. Alternatively, given that he cost the club a relatively modest fee, they could let him run his contract down until he is 31 and let him go on a free after 7 years of service. If he has been told to report for training on Monday and is allowed to rejoin the first team squad this whole episode could be put down to his inexperience and, perhaps, gullibility. Obviously, it's still in his hands to continue the fight but to do so begins to look like a futile course. For his own sake, as well as the club's, hopefully he will see where his best interests lie.

The team needs a dynamic, fast, attacking midfielder. Hang on, we've already got one on the books - Callum Slattery. At 18, this could be the right time to give him his chance instead of buying another Tadic or Boufal.

Strange that his ambition in May 2016 was to sign on for 6 years as the highest paid Saints' player and that less than 12 months later he'd discovered a different ambition after being tapped-up. It probably still hasn't dawned on him that for the club, it's not about him but the much bigger issue that contracts are enforceable and that if tapping up wasn't against Premier League rules, clubs would have no stability over their playing squad. With three CBs being called up for international duty and excellent performances by ex-young England, Jack Stephens, it could be argued that we don't need Van Dijk but the fact remains that the club can't afford to sell him because of the wider consequences.

Does anyone really believe that the manager and coaching staff haven't noticed that scoring goals is a problem. We have the players but they need to refine the skills. Football training isn't just about fitness and ball skills and I think we can be certain that shooting practice is becoming a higher priority. Feel sure we'll see some results very soon.

No. Far bigger issue than just this one player. His agent's strategy is to get Southampton fed up enough to get rid. Must not fall for it. Also, for those who think 2 top players could be recruited by Thursday with the income, are suggesting a huge gamble.

The emotional response is understandable but there is a far bigger issue at stake here; that players must accept that contracts are a legal commitment and can only be ended with the consent of both parties. To fail to make that point would lead to permanent player unrest and regular tapping up by other clubs. This saga has continued in the press because it is an excuse for the papers to speculate about a player acquisition by one of more of the big clubs. The story is enough, it doesn't have to be true to attract readers. The current big lie is that Southampton have said they won't sell Van D before January. They have said they won't sell in this window which does not mean they will change their mind come the next window, or the next, but merely that club will not limit its options beyond the immediate future as future policy will depend on future facts. However, the press will jump on anything to keep the 'big club' stories running. The interesting issue that BarcelonaSaint's comment does highlight is what Southampton can do to limit the hostile reception the player may receive when he next appears for the club. One can see quite a challenge there for the club management as to how they prepare the supporters for that event. At least it's now only a few days to the closing of the window after which we might see some genuine developments.

There is nothing Van D can do to 'force' a move. Because it requires the consent of both parties to end a contract the player can be as difficult as he likes and avoid playing in the hope the club will get fed up with him but it's still entirely in the hands of the Board. If they have overriding reasons not to allow players to break contracts when it suits them, they will do what they have done so far, stand firm and probably recoup some of their outlay through fines on the player. If the club has not changed its position by this time next week when the window has closed it might dawn on Van D how deep a hole he has dug himself.