Window Cleaner

Arsenal will take him off our hands at a push, 35 million . Price is way, way over the top, Surprised Liverpool haven't moved on by now, perhaps Klopp made him a promise eh...

I'd think they've spent enough on first team defenders already this window; What's the running total now, about 130 million on full backs ? Plus 40 million for a keeper.

Crap, rain, hope the match will see some action at least, need the points. Nope no dice, abandoned without a single ball.

You forgot to mention the 100 million euros down payment that PSG/Qatar FC have already given us against his transfer to them in about 2 years time.

Depends what the contracts actually say doesn't it. Who can say if there's a"no europe" clause in them. Or top 4, or prolonged injury or a thousand other things. Agents are pretty sharp, most of them legal eagles. The contracts that players sign usually are a bit loaded in favour of their client.

Doubling I expect.

Mané was refusing to play at Salzburg when we signed him, don't know if we had anything to do with that though, just benefited from it I expect.

Chelsea probably just trust Mark Hughes more than an Argentine that they know nothing about. You just can't say. Perhaps they offered more money or a bigger salary share or a guarantee that he'd play every week.

Who can say we didn't? Let's face it, we know squat about squat. I see many opinions voiced here as if the poster knew all the facts about everything. None of us can really say what really goes on. Tom 28 told us what was basicallly a fact and just got regally slagged off for his trouble. Me? I'm more worried about Hampshire's one day batting just now.

So, another catastrophy. Good job we won our first 3 games. From what I could deduce from the radio commentary it seems that the opposition have worked out that our tactic is to bat first and try to hit everything out of the ground. By a bit of variation in their bowling they either entice into mi**** shots or pin us down. Given that our bowlers just don't seem to be able to keep the run rate down, anything that leaves us with less than 160 or 170 is a winning performance.

Won't get anywhere near the sum required for a defender from either Italy or Spain. Only goalscorers and fancy dan AMs go for big fees in those countries.

Bloody Bopara, always seems to play well against us.

Probably but I don't see that we'd get any more than we would from a transfer fee. Mutu's behaviour made him valueless, don't think that's the case with Van Dijk.

More Gung-Ho batting from Hants, got a few more runs than yesterday but it's not great. Commentators saying that we're hitting the ball in the air too much. Plus 3 wickets for that old knob Bopara.

Wasn't Mutu sacked by Chelsea for drug use ?

No doubt but for how much ? More than he could be sold for ? I really, really doubt that.

Player can't be loaned out against his will, unless it actually says in his contract that he can, which won't be the case here I'm sure.

We are contractually obliged to let him train, we went through that with Puncheon, it's called restriction of trade. He can be made to train on his own, training with the lower age groups is a bit tricky, you aren't allowed to humiliate him in any way or ostracise him. Anyway all of this will depend exactly what his much famed contract actually states, could be that he can't be made to play in the unders or train with rhe ladies.

Not even probably, they won't qualify.

And with every day that passes his value sinks. If he's willing to hold out for a season, and let's face it the Dutch have no chance of being at WC 2018, he'll be worth coppers and we'll have lost out big time. Holding on to a player who's determined not to play for you is suicidal if said player is worth hoards of cash.

What would he care about that. Clubs can impose a fine of a maximum 2 week pay on players, don't know if the fine is renewable though. Van Dijk has more money at the bank than the club possibly and will gain a whole lot more when he's transferred.

Spot on, this is what needs to happen illico. We take a massive profit and he gets the level of football he wants.

Yes, I listened in on Radio Sussex, don't know why it seemed to work better than Radio Solent. Their commentators seemed to be of the opinion that they bowled pretty well and couldn't quite decide if the pitch was helping them a bit, didn't seem to be the case when Hants bowled though. Briggs obviously thought he had something to prove and duly did. Still, hope we're in better nick against Essex later on, they too need a win, as did Sussex.

Very poor performance from Hants yesterday, hope it's just a one off blip. Batting dire apart from Alsop who got bogged down a bit as well. Bowling nowhere near tight enough considering the poor total Sussex had to make. When you're defending 126 you really can't have your lead bowlers giving away 12 an over, although we may have just written the game off after our innings.

Didn't get any better, probably a game to forget.