Jimmy_D

No idea what you're talking about

I only care about hurting Liverpool so far as it could actually help us keep hold of players against them.

Personally I'd be keeping VvD to hurt Liverpool. I don't see them getting back into the Champion's League without him, and Liverpool without CL are slightly less likely to take some of our other players that we might want to keep hold of.

Le Tiss and The Dell had an almost psychic link, and that day when he drew all the last reserves of magic out of both himself and The Dell for one last incredible moment... It still feels like there was something supernatural happening that day.

Especially if Liverpool don't get back into the Champions League.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/834311/Virgil-van-Dijk-Liverpool-transfer-news Looks like Monk managed to indirectly make it all the way up to a national newspaper.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-news-naby-keita-13395364

'With great power comes great responsibility' Or alternatively you could take us back to the glory days of convincing Twitter that Richard Chaplow to Leeds was a done deal. That said, it could all still happen, I'd be pretty gutted if VvD does go to Liverpool. If we can't keep hold of a player we've given the captain's armband to when he has half a decade left on his contract... there really is no point in seeing ANY player as anything other than a mercenary, here to do a job for us, but not to be celebrated.

Fair enough. Would be quite funny if it turns out to be wrong after you've caused that big a twitter storm... You've managed to make a pretty big impact on the odds in the last few minutes too...

They're going to have to turn the Liverpool games into bubble games at this rate.

Really hope you're wrong on this one. Liverpool getting him for any price after everything that's happened would just be a slap in the face. My season ticket came through the door a few minutes ago, so that was good timing...

Looks like they're at risk of losing Can as well. Considering they just snuck their way into Europe and are at the highest peak they've had in a good few years, transfers don't seem to be going too well for them this summer.

Looks like Liverpool are about to lose Coutinho to Barcelona. If I was VvD I'd be thinking twice about whether forcing a move to them was really worth it.

Right from the start I've thought this stance was weird. When they're signing a new contract, they're signing it to play for US. They're less likely to if we've been selling our best players. VvD himself signed the 6 year contract because he could see the club was improving.

Liverpool will only bid if Southampton ask them to... Easy for them to say now they've tapped him up and turned his head already. Utter ****s.

It could just as easily be argued it could have the opposite effect. Players see that we're building something long term and are more willing to commit long term themselves. In the past we've certainly seen the opposite effect, players leaving makes other players want to leave themselves, most notably Schneiderlin.

The same as happens if a player goes on strike you mean? We got an extra year out of Schneiderlin and Wanyama and doing that didn't stop VvD signing a long term contract.

As has been pointed out on the Liverpool forum, back in January it seemed like they shafted us over a deal with Sakho when we needed a defender. Maybe it was a pride thing, not wanting any player to go the other way, but in any case it seemed like they basically gave us a two finger salute and bundled him off to Palace. If they hadn't done that, they may well have found us less hostile. Especially if Sakho had done alright with us, we, as well as Sakho himself, might have been more open to a part exchange deal.

There's no point in caving in to strikes that break long term contracts so that players will keep on signing long term contracts.

Reckon VvD is in catch 22 here, if he really does have his heart set on a move only to Liverpool. Liverpool won't bid unless we ask them to, because of the backing down and apology. We won't ask them to, because of the actions that led to the backing down and the apology, and how it'd look to us fans, not to mention actually wanting to keep hold of him.

Aye, some things above the rivalry. RIP.

We can choose to accept or turn down any offers we like, regardless of the value of the offer and the acceptance or rejection of any other offer.

Club won't be losing any fans if they stick to that. Might make it slightly more difficult to sign players on long contracts, especially if they have Wasserman as agents, but if players are just going to get out of those long contracts by going on strike, there was little point in them anyway. Stick to our guns here and any player that signs a new contract with us will know there's a good chance he'll have to stick to it right from the start.

We've never sold a player with 5 years left on his contract. Once, maaaybe twice, one with 4 years left? I'm remembering just fine how we sell players.

We'd be weaker on the pitch this season, if it did come to that (although I don't think we'll have to make him rot in the reserves). I'd personally be backing the club 100% if it did come to that though.