Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

Worth remembering our whole business model is based on buying, developing and selling, a stepping stone club.

If you stop players leaving when they have outgrown the club or have a far superior offer on the table then Agents will be wary of sending those type of high profile players our way over other offers.

Jack $h1t

what do I win?

:toppa:

Jack $h1t

what do I win?

You've answered your own question!

Worth remembering our whole business model is based on buying, developing and selling, a stepping stone club.

 

If you stop players leaving when they have outgrown the club or have a far superior offer on the table then Agents will be wary of sending those type of high profile players our way over other offers.

Can you think of many examples where a player has chosen us over another side for those reasons? Its not as if we pay poorly or have attracted players whose profile has raised eyebrows relative to our standing in the footballing hierarchy.

You've answered your own question!

There's a few journos reporting that Chelsea are concentrating on a move for VVD because Allegri refuses to sell Bonucci, and describes him as a future Juve captain. This is on top of reports from last week stating that Bonucci was uninterested in a move to Chelsea:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/virgil-van-dijk-transfer-news-chelsea-focus-on-southampton-man-after-juventus-close-the-door-on-a3573981.html

...and on the tapping up issue, the Guardian writes that it is believed that Saints had information to back up the claim, which they did not provide to the investigation:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/27/liverpool-to-escape-punishment-for-alleged-tapping-up-of-virgil-van-dijk

...and on the tapping up issue, the Guardian writes that it is believed that Saints had information to back up the claim, which they did not provide to the investigation:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/27/liverpool-to-escape-punishment-for-alleged-tapping-up-of-virgil-van-dijk

All good manoeuvres to bump up the price by 10 million or so.

Or Albert, leading on from your link....http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-transfer-news-should-antonio-conte-try-to-sign-liverpool-s-mamadou-sakho-instead-of-virgil-a3574321.html

****-swinging contests between two bull****ters.

 

Good stuff Saintsweb, good stuff.

Haha I knew someone would interpret me responding as that.

Anyway, no biggie.

There's a few journos reporting that Chelsea are concentrating on a move for VVD because Allegri refuses to sell Bonucci, and describes him as a future Juve captain. This is on top of reports from last week stating that Bonucci was uninterested in a move to Chelsea:

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/virgil-van-dijk-transfer-news-chelsea-focus-on-southampton-man-after-juventus-close-the-door-on-a3573981.html

Bonucci is 30, he's been at Juventus for a good few years and probably has 3 years or so left at the top, why would he abandon all that for a couple of quid more at the Chelsea circus...really.

...and on the tapping up issue, the Guardian writes that it is believed that Saints had information to back up the claim, which they did not provide to the investigation:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/27/liverpool-to-escape-punishment-for-alleged-tapping-up-of-virgil-van-dijk

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

True ITK's only get infrequent snippets. When it comes to saints, I am pretty well connected but i wouldn't betray the trust of my friends, nor would i post constant info that could be guesswork made into a 'story'.

What tier are your friends?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

 

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

I'd guess we want Liverpool to **** off this summer regarding VvD, but we don't want to completely poison the relationship between the clubs (and possibly other clubs too).

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

 

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

Well if VVD is severely mental and has his heart only set on Liverpool, then I can see Saints thinking "Have your little tantrum, come back in Pre Season, realise it's a World Cup year and play well for us next season and we'll do business with them next year on our terms at a similar price". Everyone's happy then. We get him for one more year, he gets his dream move, they get their reputation kept and CB next year.

Well if VVD is severely mental and has his heart only set on Liverpool, then I can see Saints thinking "Have your little tantrum, come back in Pre Season, realise it's a World Cup year and play well for us next season and we'll do business with them next year on our terms at a similar price". Everyone's happy then. We get him for one more year, he gets his dream move, they get their reputation kept and CB next year.

Well that would work if the earth would stay still but a lot could happen in a year. Who says Liverpool still needs a CB next year, or what ever team for that matter?

VVD probably realized it is a world cup year, a world cup he won't be at and he could actually lose his spot in the national team. Advocaat already said he prefers a right and left footed duo at the back and seeing Hoedt and De Vrij play together at the back at Lazio he has good reasons to pick those two.

Not to mention another injury and VVD could ask J-Rod advice how quickly it can all go down.

It's easy for us to say 'why not stay another year or do this or that' but it's not that easy. In football things can change very quickly and VVD ain't 22 anymore and you can bet your ass in 12 months people are raving about new talented players who have broken through.

It's all not that simple really.

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

 

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

Or if we incriminate liverpoo the FA / PL might also apply a player ban of say 3 months for his part in it (keep the player but he is out to xmas).

If we have shown VvD this information, he might have agreed not to put in a Transfer Request. Therefore we regain control of the situation.

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

 

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

Only reason I can think of is that it means we've still got something up our sleeve in case they renege on their promise they won't be pursuing the player further.

Like many I am more or less resigned to losing VVD, it's par the course now with Saints.

I just hope we get the correct fee in, times are mental in the transfer market and we need to hold firm and get the right fee.

I've been sick to the stomach, like most, re Liverpool's dealings with us. Not least because their media outlets contradict the transfer fees compared to our own leaked figures.

I know it shouldn't bother me and it certainly won't bother Saints, I just don't like feeling like we've been taken for a ride and giving another club's supporters bragging rights. Bad enough we have to sell to compete without letting these entitled w*nkers feel like they've got the better of us in negotiations.

True ITK's only get infrequent snippets. When it comes to saints, I am pretty well connected but i wouldn't betray the trust of my friends, nor would i post constant info that could be guesswork made into a 'story'.

If you seriously think I've just made that up into a story

you've just proved to me you are no way near as ITK as what I thought you might be, because that's pretty common knowledge among those that know.

Also, I hear and get told quite a lot.

If you seriously think I've just made that up into a story

you've just proved to me you are no way near as ITK as what I thought you might be, because that's pretty common knowledge among those that know.

 

Also, I hear and get told quite a lot.

Pm me mate. People trust me on here and i can be an itk to an itk

If you seriously think I've just made that up into a story

you've just proved to me you are no way near as ITK as what I thought you might be, because that's pretty common knowledge among those that know.

 

Also, I hear and get told quite a lot.

This is beautiful work. Keep going.

Liverpool could finally be seeing the writing on the wall re. VVD. The Liverpool Echo reckons there's only a "glimmer" of hope:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-only-glimmer-hope-pursuit-13260602

...also have Chelsea moved on from VVD? Multiple journos reporting that they're after Rudiger from Roma for £30 million, instead:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/06/30/chelsea-talks-sign-30m-antonio-rudiger-roma/

Liverpool could finally be seeing the writing on the wall re. VVD. The Liverpool Echo reckons there's only a "glimmer" of hope:

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-only-glimmer-hope-pursuit-13260602

But they and the press in general will keep banging on that he's leaving without one single attributable quote

Liverpool could finally be seeing the writing on the wall re. VVD. The Liverpool Echo reckons there's only a "glimmer" of hope:

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-only-glimmer-hope-pursuit-13260602

Nah, most of their ****wit fans seem to think 'not enough evidence to charge them with tapping up' means 'had permission to talk to VvD' so they'll be buying him for about £50M now because we won't want a player that's unsettled.

"It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward."

 

I'm trying to work out why we wouldn't want to incriminate one of our premier league rivals. Surely neutralising Liverpool in the transfer market (which might have been the outcome) would have been to our benefit in next season. The only logical reason is that we haven't completely closed the door to the notion that VvD might still end up at Liverpool. In other words, we'd rather take 'stupid money' from Liverpool than hold onto VvD at all costs...?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this whole malarkey.

Or we would want to hold onto it in case we needed it in the future.

The next stage of this is to see whether MoPe can talk him around.

Otherwise, VvD may feel he can force a move by pulling a mega-strop.

CHELSEA EYE RUDIGER

Chelsea are interested in signing Antonio Rudiger from Roma, but he is one of a number of centre backs they are monitoring.

Roma did not want to sell Rudiger this summer but they are now willing to listen to offers for him because his team-mate Kostas Manolas pulled out of a £30m move to Zenit St Petersburg at the last minute yesterday.

Our colleagues at Sky in Italy are reporting that Chelsea are will to pay €33m plus €5m in add ons for Rudiger.

We understand Virgil Van Dijk remains Chelsea's number one defensive target, but Southampton have re-iterated this week that they do not want to sell the Dutch centre back.

Problem is 60m probably means we will see just 30-35m after agents, player, celtic ect ect take a cut.

 

2x £12m players + wages and the VVD money has gone.

That's horse ****. The wages for the whole team come up pout of the sky money

Nah, most of their ****wit fans seem to think 'not enough evidence to charge them with tapping up' means 'had permission to talk to VvD' so they'll be buying him for about £50M now because we won't want a player that's unsettled.

Many of them are waiting for VVD to hand in a transfer request, and then it's game on as far as they're concerned. I regarded the Liverpool Echo article as an attempt to lower their expectations.

VVD now following Paul Joyce on twitter.

VVD now following Paul Joyce on twitter.

Obviously a done deal.

https://twitter.com/FabrizioRomano/status/880895309265739776 - Rudiger to Chelsea is a done deal according to this italian guardian/sky journo, medicals next week. Should rule them out of a move for VVD

Tancredi Palmeri says agreed a deal at €35m for Rudiger.

Bonucci is 30, he's been at Juventus for a good few years and probably has 3 years or so left at the top, why would he abandon all that for a couple of quid more at the Chelsea circus...really.

Bonnucci has a desire to leave Juventus and get one more payday , he nearly left last year but he has a child who is very ill ...a long term illness being treated by doctors in Italy , when he talked it through with his wife last year they made a decision for the child not to move , i suspect same will happen this year.

He is a superb pure rock solid defender , you dont get much else though in terms of flair or bringing the ball out etc

Nah, most of their ****wit fans seem to think 'not enough evidence to charge them with tapping up' means 'had permission to talk to VvD' so they'll be buying him for about £50M now because we won't want a player that's unsettled.

VVD now following Paul Joyce on twitter.

Someone mentions **** wits and the biggest one turns up

VVD now following Paul Joyce on twitter.

He's followed him for some time, he done a big interview with him a few months back...

It'll go to the week before our first league game, and then VVD will hand in a transfer request. He'll be kept out of the squad for a couple of games whilst we try to get as much as we can go him. We'll end up selling him with about a week left before the window closes and will desperately try to get someone in on loan as cover.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'll go to the week before our first league game, and then VVD will hand in a transfer request. He'll be kept out of the squad for a couple of games whilst we try to get as much as we can go him. We'll end up selling him with about a week left before the window closes and will desperately try to get someone in on loan as cover.

I'd laugh if we end up with Caceres.

It'll go to the week before our first league game, and then VVD will hand in a transfer request. He'll be kept out of the squad for a couple of games whilst we try to get as much as we can go him. We'll end up selling him with about a week left before the window closes and will desperately try to get someone in on loan as cover.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't see that happening.

It'll go to the week before our first league game, and then VVD will hand in a transfer request. He'll be kept out of the squad for a couple of games whilst we try to get as much as we can go him. We'll end up selling him with about a week left before the window closes and will desperately try to get someone in on loan as cover.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, can't see that at all. As a club we've not put ourselves in that position in the summer window before. If he's still here for the first game, he's here for the season.

Notice that the article says VVD is keen to join them, all part of the erosion of the fans love for him. LFC will use all their various media outlets to get him.

Whilst the club say hes not for sale Im sure they will let him go eventually.

Notice that the article says VVD is keen to join them, all part of the erosion of the fans love for him. LFC will use all their various media outlets to get him.

Whilst the club say hes not for sale Im sure they will let him go eventually.

They say they won't make a move for him unless we show an inclination to sell him.

So the plan will likely be to have VvD kick-off and then try to force our hand to do business.

They say they won't make a move for him unless we show an inclination to sell him.

 

So the plan will likely be to have VvD kick-off and then try to force our hand to do business.

I agree they will get him to strike or put in a transfer request. As I put earlier in the thread that he will probably do an interview in a foreign newspaper sayig how he wants to go etc and it will be said that his words were lost in translation. It will do the job for them though.

Interestingly Liverpool dont seem to be trying for defenders elsewhere and so may feel they will be getting him

Notice that the article says VVD is keen to join them, all part of the erosion of the fans love for him. LFC will use all their various media outlets to get him.

Whilst the club say hes not for sale Im sure they will let him go eventually.

Yep, this time next year !

I'm guessing this will be another Morgan/Wanyama situation. We say in public we wont sell him, but next summer hes gone.

I'm guessing this will be another Morgan/Wanyama situation. We say in public we wont sell him, but next summer hes gone.

To be honest i will be happy if we have VVD for at least one more season and then cash in big in the summer of 2018. We will have ended up with him for one more season than i honestly expected we would!

I'm guessing this will be another Morgan/Wanyama situation. We say in public we wont sell him, but next summer hes gone.

No problem with that if I'm honest.