patred44

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology." Until Kelly admits what those other 'things' were, we will never know why they apologized.

this is weird.... Mauricio Pellegrino has denied reports that Southampton are on the verge of signing Juventus midfielder Mario Lemina. Lemina is reportedly set to undergo a medical at St Mary’s tomorrow ahead of the move. “I don’t know anything about him,” he told the Daily Echo. “We are studying the market with some options. “It is difficult to bring in important players and hopefully some of them can come in to make us stronger.”

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with. Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time. Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April. Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale. here is the article... http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip "Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal." He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that. "We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology." "Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand." The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

Are Liverpool about to blink? According to this it looks as if they are going for an alternative http://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/liverpool-and-juve-hope-as-serie-a-defender-refuse-to-extend-exp-67132

he's been at those 'funny dutch cakes' again:smug:

Exactly, I daresay he'll get his new club to take up the slack and he or his agent does not lose out financially. I'd also want a hefty sell-on deal. If it is Chelsea, maybe get a player or two at an advantageous price.

This is the thing, we don't know what incentives were offered to him and/or his agent at that secret meeting. They could have said if they stick it out and said Liverpool was his only choice their bank balances would get a boost. Which would mean VD and Wassermans have the last word, and not us.

don't like thinking of this aloud, but he's worth more to us if he were to get knocked over by a herd of stampeding wildebeests and killed. We'de get full insurance and Liverpool and his agent would be left with nothing . It's OK I am due to go to confession tomorrow:uhoh:

I wonder how many fans would like to see the back of van Dijk now? as long as it's not to LFC, and as long as we get a replacement in time.. At the beginning of this saga, I doubt if many would stand for him going under any circumstances. Now, has he burned his bridges as far as we fans are concerned?

I don't think we can pay more than £10m for anyone without selling Van Dijk or Bertrand. Wasn't it only 48hours ago Kat was bemoaning the drop in her fortune from £3billion down to £100m and she won't be bankrolling any signings. I don't think the club itself has that sort of readies, we are truely on our own financially this summer.

Absobloodylutleyspoton

Tadic, PEH, and Boufal need to up their games from last season to get anywhere near the starting lineup. And yes, both Austin and Gabbiadini gets the nod for me, with Gabba as the wide player or just behind Austin. No more 'Puel like' isolated lone striker. We need to show we are a threat

Would love that to be the case, thinking of Liverpool FC and all their fans greed being 'USED' by VvD to get the move he really wants. That brings a smile to my face

The only independence the FA ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE has from the FA is purely commercial. All rules, laws etc. are the responsibility of the Football Association. 'Tapping up' is reportable to, and punishable by the Football Association, who are the governing body of the PL. https://www.premierleague.com/about/football-partners Relevant to Rules Laws and discipline... "For the Premier League, The FA ensures that throughout the season the Laws of the Game are applied on the field and that the rules and regulations concerned with running football in England are observed by officials, club and players off the pitch as well as on it. The FA also deals with all matters of on and off-field discipline."

Sorry only just seen this... depends on what aspect of Employment Act you want to research ie., from employers, Unions, or from the angle of Politics, or Paliamentary Laws? I worked in Employees rights, through the Trade Unions, TUC and Acas. The Acas sites would be the best place to start if were for general research.

OHH and I thought it was the FA PL. But, that argument is a bit of a red herring, All the rules/laws/and rulings of all Leagues and cups in this country come under the jurisdiction of FIFA, UEFA, FA.. From Sunday Leagues to the FA EPL

With respect it's not the rules about tapping up that needs looking at, it's the acceptance by the FA that all clubs do it and anyone caught will only get a warning not to do it again. The rules and sanctions are already in place, now it's up to the ruling authorities to implement the sanctions to the full if they want to stamp it out of the game. The FA have great oppurtunity with this case to show the bigger clubs they mean buisness. And, our club should not hide any evidence if they are serious in their attempt to stand up and say no more. I will be more than dissappointed if we allow the FA to sweep this case under the carpet.

Yes, every company has a disciplinary procedure for every employee as long as he/she has worked there 13 weeks. Football is no different. The procedure will provide the circumstances they can be 'fined', or to pay for 'damages' and how much. As we are dealing with a football player we can assume the clubs procedure, agreed with the PFA, allows for fines and suspensions as sanctions for breaches of their contracts. But those fines must not exceed their 'Basic Pay'. Most players basic pay is about 50% of their actual wage. The rest are bonuses and incentives including image rights etc. So he can only be fined up to the value of those add ons. Club suspensions can only be up to 36 weeks (still on Basic pay) depending on the severity of the breach of the club rules. Suspensions and fines can only be imposed by a director of the club after a disciplinary hearing where the player is afforded a defence of his choice from within the club, his agent, or the area legal rep of the PFA... Appeals are to the DWP's Employment Tribunal.

Now the Grenfell Tower disaster is getting involved.. http://georgeweahscousin.com/inverta-brat-the-van-dijk-conundrum-and-other-fairy-tales/

He maybe not refusing to do his 'duties', he is, as far as we know, training , he went on the training camp to Austria. But he maybe claimimg he is not 100% fit enough to play in competetive games. His contract would allow him to be the final judge of that despite any medical advice the club would have. We have already seen that he is not doing any contact training. He can ' hide behind his injury' for quite sometime.

I know it will seem obscene, but if we stopped paying him his basic wage we would be breaking our contract with him. However, he will lose out on extra bonuses, that are written in that contract. He could use that to claim that his contract (which is our biggest hold on him and the situation) is null and void. With good legal reps (expensive) he could also claim he is a free agent. Under the Contract of Employment Act, and the European Directive of Work, a tainted (and his contract would be tainted if his claim were upheld in a tribunal) contract of employment would be unlawful. That would rob us (and Celtic) of any transfer fee and he would be free to negoiate a contract (with an enormous signing fee) with anyone of his choice. Now it would hard to prove to any court, but unfortunately, it would not be a court of law that rules on this, it would be a Tribunal. Tribunals, unlike courts, do not have come to decision by the burden of proof or evidence, it only has to decide by the likelyhood of truth. In other words the Tribunal is only interested in whether the evidence of the defendant(complainent) is likely to have occurred. Btw...... As far as I know there has been no precedent for such a case, least not in the 20 years I was union legal rep, and none since I retired 18 years ago....but it could happen easily with good, and expensive, legal representation. There's alway a sharp one out there !

This represents a slight change in matters. FWIW I see this making it easier for other clubs to join in, what was perceived as a private party. It will make our position easier to ignore the pressure from Liverpool. However, I don't see Man City or Chelsea joining in unless the price is under £60m. Where does that leave Van Dijk, now that Liverpool reiterated their promise to not pursue him? He will feel as if they have hung him out to dry just after he started to burn his bridges with us. Will this show him that his great love affair with Kloop is not resipricated? What Van Dijk needs is a week away from it all, on a desert island, with no mobiles, no internet, no TV, AND NO BLOODY AGENT. I've gone from thinking he's gone, no way back. To having some hope he will stay, and we all know what hope can do to you!

I hope they 'torture' Liverpool in their pursuit of him! made me smile at Kloop when he said with a pained look “We are approaching a very important moment and we want to get better. For this, we have to keep our key players. So that’s the answer.” #freecoutinho

IMO he has not got the quickness of thought for that position. He has improved a lot, and there's not a lot to choose between him and Yoshida in the pecking order. But he does need at least a season with a good partner. I thought that a season with VvD would do him well, but alas! Against big physical strikers, he still has problems, particularly in the air. He really struggled against Carrol, Ibrahimovic, and Deeney of Watford last season As for England call up..no way..not yet And Puel can take no credit for bringing through, he had no other option, you might as well give more credit to Ratboy Vardy for giving him his chance! I wouldn't feel confident of a Stephens/Yoshida duo for this season we really need a good quality central defender in this window, to me, this is our absolute number one priority

we need 2-3 weeks to get in a good center back or 2 ( if we aren't already in the process now) So time is our main concern... I don't want us scrabbling around on the last few days of the window, then scouring the out of contract players like we did with Fonte's replacement. Enough damage has been done to our pre-season preparations already.