Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

Ignoring your inability to comment without an insult . Someone with ITK info has said that VVD has commented on the lack of quality signings .

 

I look forward to your usual bitter insults and jibes [emoji4]

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Do at least try and keep up.

The whole highly-publicised Liverpool saga means that Saints fans will now feel good about our best player being sold to Chelsea for 20 million less than we might have got for him at today's prices. In fact his sale could be the main feelgood factor of this pre-season.

The whole highly-publicised Liverpool saga means that Saints fans will now feel good about our best player being sold to Chelsea for 20 million less than we might have got for him at today's prices. In fact his sale could be the main feelgood factor of this pre-season.

20 million less than liverpool never offered for him.

20 million less than liverpool never offered for him.

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

The whole highly-publicised Liverpool saga means that Saints fans will now feel good about our best player being sold to Chelsea for 20 million less than we might have got for him at today's prices. In fact his sale could be the main feelgood factor of this pre-season.

To quote Wenger....

"Today, a player is worth what the club can afford to spend and I would say that the price of a player depends on the identity of the buyer. You cannot put it in the context of the market. It is the financial potential of the buyer that decides the price of the player.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/03/arsene-wenger-neymar-transfer-arsenal-alexis-sanchez

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

two of those were on the last year of their contract .....

the Club clearly should be applauded for their stance with VvD.

I still hope he will be here come 1st Sep and come to accept he will stay for the season.

That does not in any way excuse NOT bringing in a starting standard CB to partner him and a DM to play next to Romeu.

unacceptable really given the guff Les and the club make about our transfer dealings

Sod VVD, I'm more upset about James Richardson leaving football weekly !

Sod VVD, I'm more upset about James Richardson leaving football weekly !

true..he will be on a new podcast -

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

We really really do not.

That does not in any way excuse NOT bringing in a starting standard CB to partner him and a DM to play next to Romeu.

unacceptable really given the guff Les and the club make about our transfer dealings

"We scout players for years........" (and then miss out on them).

We really really do not.

We really really do

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

So we sold Chambers and Shaw below market value ? I'm not sure it is true for the others either, it's just that the financial realities and player price inflation have shifted so far in the last year or so.

This. Contracted players have to agree to join other clubs, they can't just be traded. With that said, Christensen would be a fantastic signing and as good as we could hope for as a VVD replacement. After 2 good seasons in the bundesliga he'd cost proper money though - Chelsea refused a 20m euro offer a couple of years ago.

I'm sure VVD going the other way might sweeten them though, IF they are interested in him that is.

We really really do

We get pretty much top prices for our players at the time they were sold. The only one I was really disappointed with was Wanyama, but we weren't really in control by then.

We really really do not.

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

*We* made big profits on then because we bought them cheap and improved them. We got good prices for all 3 at the time - certainly didn't undervalue any of them. Of course they could now be sold at a profit by their current clubs. That's down transfer fees going through the roof due to the tv deals. None of them have improved since leaving us, if they were still with us now on decent length contracts we'd be making bigger profits on them too, but that doesn't mean we undervalued them then.

I'd go as far as to say we have a history of getting excellent prices for players we sell - even those than want to go - and I'm talking 40 years or more dealings, not just the last couple of years. The only one I would say was considerably undervalued was Bale and his departure was down to circumstances beyond our control at the time.

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

We really really do

Cluelessness...

We really really do

Depends if you believe or want to believe the newspapers "reported" totals or look at the official financials and what we actually received for players.

What the papers say we get vs reality is in alot of cases worlds apart.

The fact we have spent more than we have received and have a bang average squad tells you everything.

I'm sure VVD going the other way might sweeten them though, IF they are interested in him that is.

It's not Chelsea that has to be sweetened, it's Christensen. If he'd rather stay out and 'fight for his place' he can and will. With Terry, Ake and Zuma gone he must be close to their first team.

Depends if you believe or want to believe the newspapers "reported" totals or look at the official financials and what we actually received for players.

 

What the papers say we get vs reality is in alot of cases worlds apart.

 

The fact we have spent more than we have received and have a bang average squad tells you everything.

 

Err, what we receive as a total fee and what we receive during an accounting period are two completely different things. Plus, have a read of the little * and ** in the accounts summary.

So any transfers/loans involving the same clubs, even if they are weeks and weeks apart, are all lumped in as being swap deals? Okay then.

no, but it would be naïve to think that none of those deals were connected. especially Robertson / Stewart.

but even actual swap deals can happen, it's not nonsense just to suggest it. Matic for Luiz was a pretty good one not so long ago.

http://www.football-italia.net/107235/everton-and-southampton-want-lemina-too

If other teams are interested then we can forget it.

Are Liverpool about to blink?

According to this it looks as if they are going for an alternative

http://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/liverpool-and-juve-hope-as-serie-a-defender-refuse-to-extend-exp-67132

Err, what we receive as a total fee and what we receive during an accounting period are two completely different things. Plus, have a read of the little * and ** in the accounts summary.

He knows all of that he's just a ****

He knows all of that he's just a ****

Noted. I just assumed he was really thick.

Noted. I just assumed he was really thick.

Go easy on him, he's only 12 years old.

VVD to address the crowd before game today, saying he's staying. That was a nice dream.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have a record for selling our best players below current market value so the other PL clubs know how to deal with us now. The clubs we sold them to could make a big profit on the likes of Wanyama, Mane and Clyne if they chose to sell them.

Shaw, Chambers, Lovren, JRod....

Reports that coutiniho not travelling with Liverpool today

But on Saturday morning, it has been confirmed that*Coutinho has not in fact travelled to Ireland with the rest of his Anfield teammates, being left out of Liverpool's squad with an apparent 'sore back'. The Brazilian didn't board the plane to the Irish capital

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with.

Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time.

Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April.

Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale.

here is the article...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip

"Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal."

He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that.

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology."

"Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand."

The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

Shaw, Chambers, Lovren, JRod....

Fonte, Rodriguez...

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with.

Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time.

Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April.

Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale.

 

here is the article...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip

 

"Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal."

 

 

He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that.

 

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology."

 

"Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand."

 

The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

It's the Daily Star quoting a Liverpool fan. I feel dirty for clicking on the link.

It's the Daily Star quoting a Liverpool fan. I feel dirty for clicking on the link.

I'd be interested in reading the original Times article that the Star is reporting on. Shame about the paywall.

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with.

Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time.

Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April.

Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale.

 

here is the article...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip

 

"Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal."

 

 

He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that.

 

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology."

 

"Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand."

 

The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

If they had permission do you honestly think we would have reported them for tapping up? It laughable

If they had permission do you honestly think we would have reported them for tapping up? It laughable

If I remember correctly Kelly was one of the tweeters who reported that an offer was made by Liverpool and a deal just about done on VVD, right before June's media **** storm. That was quite damaging for his credibility, even in the eyes of the scouses.

If they had permission do you honestly think we would have reported them for tapping up? It laughable

And then apologising!

And then apologising!

And tbh Lfc never apologise

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with.

Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time.

Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April.

Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale.

 

here is the article...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip

 

"Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal."

 

 

He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that.

 

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology."

 

"Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand."

 

The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

I;m afraid Pat that your ongoing obsession with knocking Les Reed is getting the better of you. What on earth makes you think that the club is deceiving anyone. Genuine ITKs that post snippets have been consistent VVD is not for sale and he has been told that. Whether we get rid of the lying, utter scumbag that is VVD is open to debate but the club has done nothing wrong.

Its quite amazing the press on this. Liverpool seem paragons of all virtue, and it has now started that Saints are the sinners, based on hearsay and other unsubstantiated crap. Amazing what people choose to believe but guess they do so to suit their agenda.

the obsession with Liverpool in the media is quite frankly way OTT and rather boring

There's something in this article that we all should feel a little uncomfortable with.

Have we been deliberately deceived by our club? Remember we have been told that VvD was not for sale from the outset, yet this says that we were intending to sell him all the time.

Before April we had lined up Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City as buyers and had actually spoken to them, with the proviso that they were not to make any move until after the summer window opened. Obviously Liverpool reneged on this and openlyly admitted meeting with the player and his agent at Blackpool in April.

Yet we have been told publicly and loudly that he is not for sale.

 

here is the article...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/635165/Liverpool-transfer-news-Virgil-van-Dijk-Southampton-upset-deal-LFC-latest-gossip

 

"Liverpool fan Graeme Kelly, a social media in-the-know on transfer news with more than 65,000 Twitter followers, claimed on podcast Code Red this week that Saints have always been up for a deal."

 

 

He said: “With Southampton, they were well up for a deal. Everyone goes on about [meeting him in] Blackpool and things like that.

 

"We had permission to speak to Van Dijk in Blackpool. There were things we didn't have permission for and that's why we made the apology."

 

"Chelsea met him, City met him, he is actively for sale. That wasn't the issue beforehand."

 

The issue was that something happened in the press that took a bit of Southampton's power away.

Horse droppings

Couple of bits I heard today...

Virgil is staying, unless a ridiculous bid from anybody other than Liverpool... This isn't really news though..

Also, if we sell Virgil, Cedric and Bertrand would both force moves. Club holding firm to stop any dominoes effect.

Again, think it's common knowledge, but the players absolutely love Eric black.

Sorry if this isn't really anything extra, thought I'd share though.

Couple of bits I heard today...

 

Virgil is staying, unless a ridiculous bid from anybody other than Liverpool... This isn't really news though..

 

Also, if we sell Virgil, Cedric and Bertrand would both force moves. Club holding firm to stop any dominoes effect.

 

Again, think it's common knowledge, but the players absolutely love Eric black.

 

Sorry if this isn't really anything extra, thought I'd share though.

Thanks for sharing

Couple of bits I heard today...

 

Virgil is staying, unless a ridiculous bid from anybody other than Liverpool... This isn't really news though..

 

Also, if we sell Virgil, Cedric and Bertrand would both force moves. Club holding firm to stop any dominoes effect.

 

Again, think it's common knowledge, but the players absolutely love Eric black.

 

Sorry if this isn't really anything extra, thought I'd share though.

It is for AR-10. Cheers.

It is for AR-10. Cheers.

Dont know wheher it was my imagination but Bertrand did not seem to be 'engaged' today.

Couple of bits I heard today...

 

Virgil is staying, unless a ridiculous bid from anybody other than Liverpool... This isn't really news though..

 

Also, if we sell Virgil, Cedric and Bertrand would both force moves. Club holding firm to stop any dominoes effect.

 

Again, think it's common knowledge, but the players absolutely love Eric black.

 

Sorry if this isn't really anything extra, thought I'd share though.

So, if/when Virgil is still here on 1st Sept, he's going to have the right hump with Cedric and Bertrand, if they were instrumental in convincing the board not to sell him. Perhaps doesn't bode too well for team spirit whichever way the cookie crumbles?

As Tom28 said, and it's a true, Bertrand, Cedric and Tadic have backed down on their hunt for new clubs and are really enjoying the new manager and if there was any chance of Virgil staying, they need to stay.

Virgil trained with the 1st team on Thursday for the most part. Don't know what that means. He wasn't at the ground today. Big few days/week coming up I believe.

Also, this Graeme Kelly guy isn't far off with what he says.

Fonte, Rodriguez...

Who do you think JRod is that I was referring to?