Jimmy_D

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.

The fact he was not playing for us and training on his own a few hours after a slew of articles about how he was Liverpool's only target says to me that Liverpool have probably had something to do with the timing. Personally I'd be absolutely disgusted if he ends up at Liverpool.

Jeez, their ****witted excuses for fans are still going on about how unfair it was being called out on their illegal tapping up. They really do earn the victims tag don't they.

That's a pretty short list in football.

Aye, 'swept under the carpet' comes to mind.

In which case he's choosing to stay then.

We can only accept offers from other clubs though, denying him the opportunity of joining Liverpool, and only giving him the choice of staying here or joining a different club other than Liverpool.

It's utterly ridiculous that a player with half a decade left on his contract should expect to leave, or that any club should expect to be able to get him, if the club doesn't want to sell. Has that EVER happened with ANY player?

He'll probably move on at some point in the future, but he's still the best choice for it now I reckon.

Personally I'd give it to Romeu. He GETS it with Southampton.

Pfft, he has a history of winding people up with crap like that and it's not always been right. Wouldn't surprise me if he's guessed on this too from VVD's twitter and happened to be right this time.

If it was me personally, I'd be telling he can move on a free in five years time, but I'm not sure the team would end up better off by doing that...

It's not just about van Dijk and this window or this season though. We've suffered more than most from tapping up, usually to Liverpool. If we can do something about that we'll be far better off for it.

If we get the money we want from someone other than Liverpool, he's gone.

He's certainly made a good impression so far.

Certainly isn't ideal. Makes you wonder why VVD wants to move, though. After all, there's been no bid for him, and any contact with the player would have beeen illegal. Might come down to it that we have to make it so that Liverpool can't sign anyone to keep him.

I hope you lot realise you've managed to convince Twitter that VvD is actually on strike now

Looks like the brakes are being put on Gomez going out on loan from Liverpool.

Personally I find it quite an interesting social experiment to see how far you're willing to keep digging.