Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

What is the take on this regarding strike action by a player? Do they get paid? In the normal world you don't. These people have big egos that need knocking down. It is not illegal to strike, down tools, money stops immediately.

Love Matt Le Tissier comment re Coutinho big move to Barca.

Liverpool making another disclosure to the media and trying to put the onus back on Saints and make them less the villians.

It also doesnt look like they will pay more than £55M - £60M because they have made sure using the media that they are the only buyer.

How do we know that Chelsea etc are not interested? Media sources have intimated that others might be interested?

We are SO in the driving seat here, clearly.

 

He apparently only wants to go to Liverpool, and Liverpool cannot approach us.

 

Unless Reed capitulates (in which case he should lose his job), he aint going for anything south of 70m, maybe 65m if another club steps in.

I'm sure the manager will have a say as well. There may come a stage that he feels it's counter productive for moral & the side, having VvD playing the arse every day. He may want to move on & use the funds to invest in the team, should Reed lose his job then

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure the manager will have a say as well. There may come a stage that he feels it's counter productive for moral & the side, having VvD playing the arse every day. He may want to move on & use the funds to invest in the team, should Reed lose his job then

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The manager has been here 5 minutes, I doubt that his appraisal counts for very much at all just yet. Why for all we know VvD might still be here long after the manager has gone.

Yep. Will take quite a U-turn if we invite Liverpool to bid.

 

...

If we starting talking to other sides (Chelski, Man City etc) we will also invite them in.

I think the PL told them last time that they would be charged if they made another attempt to sign him in this window, hence the Liverpoo Echo article is really saying they are afraid of the PL actions, not us.

Yesterdays rumour (Tom) that he was considering other sides is also part of the same plot to try and get other sides to get Saints to change their "Not for Sale" stance. I.e. if we suddenly received a £80m offer from another side suddenly that would be matched by the bindippers (£20m cash plus their £60m rated Sakho (real value £18-20m)) and the player will ONLY choose one side.

Maybe Liverpool don't have the money until Coutinho is sold to Barca and maybe Barca don't have the cash until Neymar is sold to PSG..

Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal are all playing a waiting game IMO. The wise ones will wait a season to see if he's the same player after his injury.

Evening Standard (OK - not an impeccable source) have had Conte trailing VVD and on his shortlist on a regular basis. After all of the Liverpool smoke, I still think they are interested and no house move for VVD = easier to sell at home potentially. Chelsea can also blow Pool out of the water on personal terms and agents love £££. Jurgen would be a but a day on the Lancashire coast (and not the nice bit either). Arsenal won't pay anywhere what Saints want unless Sanchez/AOC is sold to pay for it to appease their fans.

I too would wait to see how VVD fares post-injury but the agent will want his money now - up to him to secure a lucrative move to another destination other than Liverpool which satisfies both player and current employer. Now we'll find out if he's any good or not after the Blackpool shambles.

Maybe Liverpool don't have the money until Coutinho is sold to Barca and maybe Barca don't have the cash until Neymar is sold to PSG..

Last I heard Neymar is staying put and PSG are putting all of their energy (and no doubt money) into the pursuit of Alexis Sanchez.

Could be a bit embarrassing for VVD here. Left out of the squad going to France.

Left to "clear his head" ie. wait to see if any bids come in for him.

What if nothing comes in? Could end up at West Ham

If we starting talking to other sides (Chelski, Man City etc) we will also invite them in.

 

I think the PL told them last time that they would be charged if they made another attempt to sign him in this window, hence the Liverpoo Echo article is really saying they are afraid of the PL actions, not us.

 

Yesterdays rumour (Tom) that he was considering other sides is also part of the same plot to try and get other sides to get Saints to change their "Not for Sale" stance. I.e. if we suddenly received a £80m offer from another side suddenly that would be matched by the bindippers (£20m cash plus their £60m rated Sakho (real value £18-20m)) and the player will ONLY choose one side.

That wouldn't mean would have to accept Liverpool offer though. I would fully expect us to decline Liverpool's offer and sell him to the other side.

Is anyone really going to gamble £60-70m on a player who just missed half a season through injury?

I wouldn't. Especially when he isn't playing matches right now so can't even scout and assess him.

That wouldn't mean would have to accept Liverpool offer though. I would fully expect us to decline Liverpool's offer and sell him to the other side.

And if VvD doesn't accept the terms of the other side? Which he doesn't have to.

And if VvD doesn't accept the terms of the other side? Which he doesn't have to.

No, this is true. However, if the board tell him he is not going to Liverpool, then he has little option unless he'd prefer to stay with us.

What is the take on this regarding strike action by a player? Do they get paid? In the normal world you don't. These people have big egos that need knocking down. It is not illegal to strike, down tools, money stops immediately.

 

Love Matt Le Tissier comment re Coutinho big move to Barca.

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 !

We need to stay strong and not be walked over, he will soon knuckle down when we get past the transfer window. And we won't lose much value even if we were to keep him three years. As the transfer prices just keep getting bigger

No, this is true. However, if the board tell him he is not going to Liverpool, then he has little option unless he'd prefer to stay with us.

I can't see LFC coming back in for him TBH after all they ended (very publicly) all interest in the player. To reignite that interest would not be in their best interests imo. If they did then they know it's going to cost them £70m+. Been wrong before tho [emoji6]

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 !

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 !

What does European Directive of Work say about employees who refuse to carry out their duties even though they are being paid to do so?

No, this is true. However, if the board tell him he is not going to Liverpool, then he has little option unless he'd prefer to stay with us.

Take whatever is on offer, be a knob for half a season and join Liverpool in January.. Not sure that it happens a whole lot but I'm sure I could find at least one case like that in the history of football.

What does European Directive of Work say about employees who refuse to carry out their duties even though they are being paid to do so?

Who is refusing to do his job tho? I havent heard or seen anything that stated that VVD refuses to do his job (tricky to legally define what his job is in the first place cause playing matches isnt his job), only that he was thrown out of the squad because the manager only wants players who are 100% focused on playing for Southampton.

Fair enough but good luck in court with that.

The manager has been here 5 minutes, I doubt that his appraisal counts for very much at all just yet. Why for all we know VvD might still be here long after the manager has gone.

If the manager goes to Les & says he doesn't want VvD round the first team, that his attitude is causing issues, and he would rather have the money for a replacement, what do you think Les will say?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is refusing to do his job tho? I havent heard or seen anything that stated that VVD refuses to do his job (tricky to legally define what his job is in the first place cause playing matches isnt his job), only that he was thrown out of the squad because the manager only wants players who are 100% focused on playing for Southampton.

 

Fair enough but good luck in court with that.

I read that VVD stated that he's not available to play because he wants to leave. It could be that the manager is telling lies but it does sound like he's unwilling to carry out his duties in this case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/liverpool-transfer-news-virgil-van-dijk-jurgen-klopp-southampton-pre-season-squad-a7856611.html

If the manager goes to Les & says he doesn't want VvD round the first team, that his attitude is causing issues, and he would rather have the money for a replacement, what do you think Les will say?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's not for sale ? Same as up until now.

I read that VVD stated that he's not available to play because he wants to leave. It could be that the manager is telling lies but it does sound like he's unwilling to carry out his duties in this case.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/liverpool-transfer-news-virgil-van-dijk-jurgen-klopp-southampton-pre-season-squad-a7856611.html

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.

Best he not see this then ..

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/33855/10959742/liverpool-target-naby-keita-causes-rb-leipzig-training-to-be-abandoned

I work for BT and trust me they will not bid next time around - look up where the head of BT Sports (lady) that negotiated that deal is now. Sky subs have dropped by nearly 50% ahead of the new season. Not sure there is that much foreign money for live TV rights (could be wrong, but they show live PL games on a Saturday in Ireland and the Irish TV stations are broke so can't be paying too much). In any case this gravy train will not continue for ever, and maybe we are prudent to keep our powder dry and not spend big right now - by all means sell that gutless, disloyal, spoilt, dummy spitting baby for as much as we can, and invest wisely if we can.

 

The only thing that might keep the golden goose going is the likes of Amazon, Google etc. - who may pay for live updates to increase advertising hits. However they are really really tough negotiators and not sure they would pay anywhere near the same. Interesting times ahead and football, EPL in particular, is the last place I would ever invest in to make money.

I didn't realise BT had decided not to bid next time round. Why the U-turn? Has it not paid off? With Sky struggling, I'd of thought one more Prem deal in BT's pocket and it could pave the end for SKY.

Domestic tv income is £1.8b a season, whilst foreign is £1b a season, so I'd say there is quite a bit of foreign money for TV rights.

Liverpool making another disclosure to the media and trying to put the onus back on Saints and make them less the villians.

 

It also doesnt look like they will pay more than £55M - £60M because they have made sure using the media that they are the only buyer.

I agree LFC dont want to spend more than £60m, but how have Liverpool used the media to make sure there is only one buyer?

I think the huge `interest' (discussions on the phone etc) shown by their manager is what has persuaded VVD that Liverpool is the one club for him. I don't see how the media reporting has any bearing on whether Chelsea give his agent a call to find out how much he wants and hw much Saints will let him go for. They just don't seem interested.

If the manager goes to Les & says he doesn't want VvD round the first team, that his attitude is causing issues, and he would rather have the money for a replacement, what do you think Les will say?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And if VvD doesn't accept the terms of the other side? Which he doesn't have to.

I struggle to see a scenario where United, Chelsea or Man City come in and VVD says, nah, you're alright, I've got my heart set on Liverpool thanks Pep.

Now the Grenfell Tower disaster is getting involved..

http://georgeweahscousin.com/inverta-brat-the-van-dijk-conundrum-and-other-fairy-tales/

do you have a replacement in mind?

Replacement or player of equal standard ...there is a massive difference.

Sahko/Mangala are the type ( not necessarily those) we get bullied with Yosh/Stephens/Gardos by

the likes of Carroll, Lukaku etc

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.

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.

Reed was already saying that VvD was going nowhere back in January, at that time we had a valid CB pairing and thus didn't need Sakho, something which might have changed with the sale of Fonte. But Sakho is basically a left sided CB anyway, he's nowhere near as good on the other side from what I've seen.

I agree LFC dont want to spend more than £60m, but how have Liverpool used the media to make sure there is only one buyer?

 

I think the huge `interest' (discussions on the phone etc) shown by their manager is what has persuaded VVD that Liverpool is the one club for him. I don't see how the media reporting has any bearing on whether Chelsea give his agent a call to find out how much he wants and hw much Saints will let him go for. They just don't seem interested.

Has anyone actually stopped to think that other clubs see him as not as good as his hype!

Still worth 75m ( in the present market place) but not nearly as good as the papers and media would have him and Liverpool believe...

Could be a bit embarrassing for VVD here. Left out of the squad going to France.

Left to "clear his head" ie. wait to see if any bids come in for him.

What if nothing comes in? Could end up at West Ham

Nah. Much too young for West Ham. He'd be the tea boy there.

Has anyone actually stopped to think that other clubs see him as not as good as his hype!

Still worth 75m ( in the present market place) but not nearly as good as the papers and media would have him and Liverpool believe...

If John Stones can go for 50m then 70m for VVD is not overpriced.

Has anyone actually stopped to think that other clubs see him as not as good as his hype!

Still worth 75m ( in the present market place) but not nearly as good as the papers and media would have him and Liverpool believe...

I don't think that his decision to favour Klopp and Liverpool over other teams helped.

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.

Is this another player who is not 100% with his club at the moment? http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/832483/Naby-Keita-tackle-video-Liverpool-target

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.

I would suspect that as part of the agreement over the tapping up claim, they are not allowed to bid unless we invite them to.

I would suspect that as part of the agreement over the tapping up claim, they are not allowed to bid unless we invite them to.

Which would be the case if we put him on the transfer list. Perhaps they're just screwing with us eh, no intention of bidding a reasonable sum for the player in any case.

Something i've noticed is that when Liverpool first got in trouble two weeks ago, everytime I turned on TalkSport the narrative was 'Saint's should let him go" "Who do Saint's think they are?" but now VVD has gone strike and you would think TalkSport would have a proper story to talk about, it seems to have gone a bit quiet. Is it possible that someone at Liverpool has got hold of TalkSport and said,'Don't stir this up again, we could probably get this deal done, and we don't want to **** Saints off again'

Something i've noticed is that when Liverpool first got in trouble two weeks ago, everytime I turned on TalkSport the narrative was 'Saint's should let him go" "Who do Saint's think they are?" but now VVD has gone strike and you would think TalkSport would have a proper story to talk about, it seems to have gone a bit quiet. Is it possible that someone at Liverpool has got hold of TalkSport and said,'Don't stir this up again, we could probably get this deal done, and we don't want to **** Saints off again'

It should be called Kloppsport. I don't listen to it very much anymore as it is so Liverpool orientated its unlistenable.

It seems most of the presenters are Liverpool fans. I can't imagine even Liverpool

TV could be any more biased.

Something i've noticed is that when Liverpool first got in trouble two weeks ago, everytime I turned on TalkSport the narrative was 'Saint's should let him go" "Who do Saint's think they are?" but now VVD has gone strike and you would think TalkSport would have a proper story to talk about, it seems to have gone a bit quiet. Is it possible that someone at Liverpool has got hold of TalkSport and said,'Don't stir this up again, we could probably get this deal done, and we don't want to **** Saints off again'

Wouldn't have thought so the Sun now run talksport

It should be called Kloppsport. I don't listen to it very much anymore as it is so Liverpool orientated its unlistenable.

It seems most of the presenters are Liverpool fans. I can't imagine even Liverpool

TV could be any more biased.

Yeah it seems weird that it seems to have died down. They even did a review of what players Liverpool need this morning & VVD didn't get one mention! The guys on strike and angling for a move to liverpool..and not one mention? It seems really suspicious to me.

Wouldn't have thought so the Sun now run talksport

I don't deny that....but surely you wouldn't deny it's full of Liverpool fanboys.

I don't deny that....but surely you wouldn't deny it's full of Liverpool fanboys.

Yeah loads of ex players but a real fan like Colin Murray who I did actually like listening to handed his notice in and left when they took over so I can't see the club directly having anything to do with them ! For the record would love to give Micky Quinn a slap though haha

Wouldn't have thought so the Sun now run talksport

The Sun don't hate Liverpool.

Liverpool hates The Sun. It was only Colin Murray that was principled enough to resign when they bought the station. The rest of the scouse mafia, Quinn, Murphy, Evans and the utter cvnt Parry are only too happy to take The Dirty Diggers money.

Most people obviously missed the phone in a couple of days again with Jason Cundy being a proper ***t saying vvd is perfectly right to strike to get out of a club like saints to progress his career, saying he's far too good for us and we're only a selling club and restricting his right to trade. Bit of a knob really.