Les Reed and the Board

How much longer does he have fans confidence and support, if we sell Van Dijk to Liverpool this summer?

I don't intend this to become a slagging off session of Les and FWIW I've met him a couple of times and I actually think he's a decent bloke who's done a fantastic job for us. However, given he and Ralph have reiterated that Virgil is not for sale and the complaint to the PL about Liverpool, I think if Virgil goes to them this summer, it could be the straw that breaks the camels back for most fans, IMO.

They're in a bit of a difficult situation really, as the player wants to go there and they're probably the only club that will match our asking price, but they just cannot (surely) sell to them given the two reasons as mentioned above. If they do, it will just make us look extremely weak and a bit of a joke if i'm honest.

Personally I think this will drag on, but he will end up a Liverpool player at the end of the window which will be very disappointing.

SKD, if VVD goes, then what you write about fans confidence and support being lost is not how I would feel. I am seemingly more pragmatic, or maybe, more phlegmatic than most here.

Good article on the UI about how we're getting plaudits for our stance on VVD :

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/news/46039/the-media-are-lauding-saints-for-staying-firm-!

For me selling Van Dijk to Liverpool now for anything under £70million would actually be the very first instance of them knowingly ****ing the fans over. There have been a couple of mistakes before but nothing major enough to ignore the fantastic progress we've made as a club.

Good article on the UI about how we're getting plaudits for our stance on VVD :

 

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/news/46039/the-media-are-lauding-saints-for-staying-firm-!

I thought we weren't allowed to agree with anything that Alex Crook writes.

I had always anticipated he will go despite what the Board have said. If he stays then great but if he goes then that was always my expectation .

I actually think he should go. Any one of us would surely try and reach the pinnacle of their chosen careers and he's no different. Yes he signed a long contract recently but we know what they are worth. Diddly squat. They do mean however that we will get the maximum fee which is no bad thing and we can buy 3 or four highly quality players which is what we need. The alternative is we have a disillusioned player who potentially won't be giving his all and we haven't had the chance t make meaningful additions to the squad.

It's hard to see a way back for him now and I don't expect him to either.

In my opinion reed was always going to sell vvd this summer. Ideally not to Liverpool which is the reason for vvd going on strike but ultimately reed will sell to Liverpool after dragging out the negotiations and getting what club deems as good value.

It's the same process every year. We put up a fake stance saying player not for sell. Situation purposely drags out. Player kicks off. Club PR Spin machine booted up. Players reputation dragged through the mud. Saints then sell. Fans not as upset as before as player made to be the villain.

Repeat with Boufal summer 2018. Mark my words

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

SKD, if VVD goes, then what you write about fans confidence and support being lost is not how I would feel. I am seemingly more pragmatic, or maybe, more phlegmatic than most here.

Of course this is all my personal opinion and which I why I asked the question to gauge the responses.

If I had the choice, given all circumstances, I'd sell him should an offer around our valuation come in. However it wouldn't be to Liverpool under any circumstances. It would leave VVD with 2 choices:

1) Shut up, get on with the job he is paid (very well) to do, in a professional manor.

2) Get his agent to tout him around and fanatically apologies to City, Chelsea ect.. for the embarrassment of the press saying he's turned them down.

For me it's threefold.

1) After making such a fuss about tapping up & then rolling over and selling to Liverpool would make Saints seem laughable.

2) Selling him to anyone for less than the quoted £75m would make us seem weak

3) Selling him 3 weeks or less before the season starts & then expecting that we'll be able to complete a transfer for a new first choice centre back and give him and Stephens/Yoshida time to bed in together before the season starts on Aug 12th seems vastly optimistic. For this reason It's very close if not past the point we should be rejecting all bids and telling him his only option is to stay this season.

In my opinion reed was always going to sell vvd this summer. Ideally not to Liverpool which is the reason for vvd going on strike but ultimately reed will sell to Liverpool after dragging out the negotiations and getting what club deems as good value.

 

It's the same process every year. We put up a fake stance saying player not for sell. Situation purposely drags out. Player kicks off. Club PR Spin machine booted up. Players reputation dragged through the mud. Saints then sell. Fans not as upset as before as player made to be the villain.

 

Repeat with Boufal summer 2018. Mark my words

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

Is it? We are 4 days away from July 28th, which is when we sold Chambers and the latest we have sold a player who wasn't surplus to requirements, when we sell we always do it early. This is playing out just like it did with Schneiderlin and Wanyama.

We would all love 1) above to happen.

But will it? Like Angelman, I am pragmatic. It's wrong that Liverpool were able to court VVD and then back away. But they were able to, by publicly apologizing and then looking sheepish.

I am not one of those who would take £50M off a Chelsea/other rather than £75M off Liverpool. Just sell to the highest bidder. If that's Liverpool, so be it.

Stop demonising Les Reed. He has to do what is best for the Club. And keeping a disgruntled non-performing player on the payroll at £90k a week is not what is best.

In order of preference:

1) Come to an agreement with VVD, have him play in a professional manner.

2) Sell to highest bidder and buy replacement.

If it's Liverpool as highest bidder, ensure Sakho is part of PX deal.

LR will still have my support if VvD goes to LFC for £70m. VvD has put SFC in this position by signing a contract he had no intention to up hold.

I had always anticipated he will go despite what the Board have said. If he stays then great but if he goes then that was always my expectation .

 

I actually think he should go. Any one of us would surely try and reach the pinnacle of their chosen careers and he's no different. Yes he signed a long contract recently but we know what they are worth. Diddly squat. They do mean however that we will get the maximum fee which is no bad thing and we can buy 3 or four highly quality players which is what we need. The alternative is we have a disillusioned player who potentially won't be giving his all and we haven't had the chance t make meaningful additions to the squad.

 

It's hard to see a way back for him now and I don't expect him to either.

What they mean is that if the player gets injured we continue to pay him and try, and keep trying, to get him fit and save his career. But when he is about to return he looks around for an even bigger payday. Let him go and get the biggest fee possible, Liverpool or not. Why take less from another English club just because we don't like Liverpool? It is a business. The days of locally owned clubs expecting loyalty from players have long gone. They just expect loyalty from fans because a) it maintains the illusion that these are cosy "clubs" and b) they know fans are mugs with syphon-able wallets, by and large.

This situation will play out every year whilst we sell ourselves to players as the ultimate stepping-stone club.

Maybe it's time to change our recruitment model. Personally, i wouldn't mind us signing a few proven players a little older.

I would feel let down if we sold VVD after Ralph told us we weren't a selling club any more. The truth? Or more bluster to sell season tickets under false pretences? We'll find out soon enough.

I am at the stage now where I don't really care either way. I'm long past caring about Premier League clubs and players any more, they do what they want and aren't really bothered about their fans to be honest.

If he stays and plays as brilliantly as usual, then great. If he goes then I hope the club will squeeze every last penny out of his next club, seeing as he chose to sign up for 6 years last year.

Of course this is all my personal opinion and which I why I asked the question to gauge the responses.

 

If I had the choice, given all circumstances, I'd sell him should an offer around our valuation come in. However it wouldn't be to Liverpool under any circumstances. It would leave VVD with 2 choices:

1) Shut up, get on with the job he is paid (very well) to do, in a professional manor.

2) Get his agent to tout him around and fanatically apologies to City, Chelsea ect.. for the embarrassment of the press saying he's turned them down.

I wouldn't disagree with this, although my preference would be to keep him. I think when it comes to playing, players are generally professional enough to get on with the job at hand. However if he is not part of the "generally professional" set, then yes, sell him at our valuation, and yes, not to Liverpool. The problem then is one of what we accept from others when they baulk at our valuation.

I do not think that it is possible to lay the blame of how VVD feels/acts at the feet of Les and the board. They too have to be pragmatic about it, no doubt in consultation with the manager, but them being phlegmatic and sanguine is what seemingly doesn't wash well with the fans. Equanimity should not be seen as treating the fans with disdain.

LR will still have my support if VvD goes to LFC for £70m. VvD has put SFC in this position by signing a contract he had no intention to up hold.

That's true. Although, he may be able to claim he did have an intention to keep it at the time of signing it but now wants to go as a larger club have declared an interest. However, you are certainly correct in that we should think less of VVD, not less of LR.

We would all love 1) above to happen.

But will it? Like Angelman, I am pragmatic. It's wrong that Liverpool were able to court VVD and then back away. But they were able to, by publicly apologizing and then looking sheepish.

I am not one of those who would take £50M off a Chelsea/other rather than £75M off Liverpool. Just sell to the highest bidder. If that's Liverpool, so be it.

Stop demonising Les Reed. He has to do what is best for the Club. And keeping a disgruntled non-performing player on the payroll at £90k a week is not what is best.

In order of preference:

1) Come to an agreement with VVD, have him play in a professional manner.

2) Sell to highest bidder and buy replacement.

 

If it's Liverpool as highest bidder, ensure Sakho is part of PX deal.

This above makes perfect sense to me. I do not blame Les or the board for the VvD situation, not will I. I blame the player, he signed a new long-term contract and now he wants to leave. Why did he bother signing the new contract if he knew he wanted to leave??

That's true. Although, he may be able to claim he did have an intention to keep it at the time of signing it but now wants to go as a larger club have declared an interest. However, you are certainly correct in that we should think less of VVD, not less of LR.

He freely signed the contract, nobody forced him to. He should have made a better job of thinking through his future and if he wanted to leave to progress his career he shouldn't have signed. Now he has to live with the consequences.

I seriously doubt we will sell him to Liverpool, I'm like 95% certain that won't happen for five reasons -

1. We'd look like idiots after publicly complaining about them.

2. The club know the fans would be upset if we sold to them.

3. I don't think the Liverpool owners want the fuss and bad PR, even if they haven't done anything further wrong, if he goes then immediately there will suggestions that Liverpool were behind his strike and were further meddling behind the scenes to push the move through. They are club built on their old school reputation and their history, this mess has tarnished that and I don't think they want to be seen to be that club.

4. I don't think Liverpool have the money to meet our valuation and I don't think the board want to back down on that valuation.

5. I think the Coutinho thing helps us, they can't have this both ways, of course some moronic Liverpool fans will think they can, but they can't, you can't stir up one player to agitate a move and just expect a smaller club to roll over to the bigger club and then when the shoe is on the other foot stop one of your main players moving to a clearly better and more successful team. It looks stupid and goes back to point 3.

I'm also more and more of the opinion that he might not go at all, whilst I'm pretty sure the club will let him go to someone else that isn't pool, the number of suitors with the cash seems limited to me and the two main players Chelsea and Man City seem to have distanced themselves from this transfer. Man City are splashing the cash elsewhere and Chelsea are not exactly desperate for centre-backs.

So you are looking at a change of heart from them, are they likely to splash £60-70 million on a player that is not a main priority? And how likely is another club with that spending power likely to appear, Real, Barca, Arsenal, Man Utd, PSG? seems unlikely to me, Real and Barca have good centre backs and seem to be looking to recruit elsewhere (like Coutinho and Mpabbe), Arsenal have two good centre backs, have just spent near £50 million on a striker and are more focused on desperately keeping Sanchez and Ozil. Utd have just bought a centre-back, unlikely they will spend Lukaku levels of money again this season and PSG are trying to sign Neymar, which will leave them zero room for any other spending under FFP and they will more likely have to offload some players.

No matter what happens there will be hundreds of posts slagging off Les or Ralph or Kat or all three. It is the way of things here. Anyone who runs a business or has spent time in management knows that you have to be flexible. Things change and you need to be able to react according to the differing circumstances. I don't believe that there was a plan to sell VVD this summer. The plan might still be to try and keep him. But with him kicking off and playing the spoilt brat the Board have to make the best decision they can for the club going forward. That might mean selling and it might mean selling to Liverpool. That will **** many people off, but they don't run the club and they are not privy to what is going on behind the scenes. That will not matter though because some will see it as a sell out. Personally, if he is going to go, I want it to be for the most money. If that is to Liverpool, so be it. I would prefer to see the club stay firm and not sell him this year, but the Board make that call and that will do what they think is best, no matter what the fans think.

No matter what happens there will be hundreds of posts slagging off Les or Ralph or Kat or all three. It is the way of things here. Anyone who runs a business or has spent time in management knows that you have to be flexible. Things change and you need to be able to react according to the differing circumstances. I don't believe that there was a plan to sell VVD this summer. The plan might still be to try and keep him. But with him kicking off and playing the spoilt brat the Board have to make the best decision they can for the club going forward. That might mean selling and it might mean selling to Liverpool. That will **** many people off, but they don't run the club and they are not privy to what is going on behind the scenes. That will not matter though because some will see it as a sell out. Personally, if he is going to go, I want it to be for the most money. If that is to Liverpool, so be it. I would prefer to see the club stay firm and not sell him this year, but the Board make that call and that will do what they think is best, no matter what the fans think.

The issue is that a low priced sale to Liverpool will cause damage to the club by ****ing off the fans and encouraging other clubs to come in for our players. Keeping VVD for another season is worth the cost if it sends a message to our squad and th other clubs

LR will still have my support if VvD goes to LFC for £70m. VvD has put SFC in this position by signing a contract he had no intention to up hold.

Agreed. We have clearly stated we do not want to sell. But if our most prized asset chooses to sulk, the most logical thing for the board to do would be to sell and get in players who can actually contribute to the squad. Blame is 100% on VVD, okay and maybe Liverpool. How anyone can see this as something to blame LR (again) is beyond me

What should Les Reed and the board have done differently? Sold him to Liverpool when news of the Blackpool meeting broke? Not be as adamant that VVD wouldn't be sold?

We've been put in a difficult situation by VVD, his agent and last but not least Liverpool. VVD is under contract and Reed and the board should do everything to keep hold of him. BUT, if they are not sure VVD will be a professional and try his best to earn an even bigger contract next year, they should sell him if our valuation of him is met (even if it is to Liverpool).

We should also consider that our stance can hurt us long-term. Agents are paying attention and we will be less likely to get players to sign long-term contracts if we don't let them leave if a big club comes in and is willing to pay a substantial fee.

What should Les Reed and the board have done differently? Sold him to Liverpool when news of the Blackpool meeting broke? Not be as adamant that VVD wouldn't be sold?

 

We've been put in a difficult situation by VVD, his agent and last but not least Liverpool. VVD is under contract and Reed and the board should do everything to keep hold of him. BUT, if they are not sure VVD will be a professional and try his best to earn an even bigger contract next year, they should sell him if our valuation of him is met (even if it is to Liverpool).

 

We should also consider that our stance can hurt us long-term. Agents are paying attention and we will be less likely to get players to sign long-term contracts if we don't let them leave if a big club comes in and is willing to pay a substantial fee.

There's no point in caving in to strikes that break long term contracts so that players will keep on signing long term contracts.

There's no point in caving in to strikes that break long term contracts so that players will keep on signing long term contracts.

Yes there is. We can demand a higher fee and to a larger extend control when players will be sold. If players only sign two year contracts we know we have to sell after year two to get a fee.

There's no point in caving in to strikes that break long term contracts so that players will keep on signing long term contracts.

But if LFC end up having to pay a world record fee for a defender in order to break that long term contract - doesn't that make it worth it?

More helpful than VvD going "full Berahino", no?

Yes there is. We can demand a higher fee and to a larger extend control when players will be sold. If players only sign two year contracts we know we have to sell after year two to get a fee.

The same as happens if a player goes on strike you mean?

We got an extra year out of Schneiderlin and Wanyama and doing that didn't stop VvD signing a long term contract.

The same as happens if a player goes on strike you mean?

 

We got an extra year out of Schneiderlin and Wanyama and doing that didn't stop VvD signing a long term contract.

We sold Lallana and Lovren even though they had long-term contracts. As I said, depends on how the player reacts and the timing during the transfer window. I can't judge if the VVD is a Schneiderling/Wanyama or a Lovren/Lallana situation.

All I am saying is that if we seem to be punishing VVD/Liverpool to prove a point about contracts we are not just making a statement to the big clubs that we won't be bullied. We are also making one to the players and their agents and they will probably be less likely to sign long-term contracts or demand release-fee clauses.

We sold Lallana and Lovren even though they had long-term contracts. As I said, depends on how the player reacts and the timing during the transfer window. I can't judge if the VVD is a Schneiderling/Wanyama or a Lovren/Lallana situation.

 

All I am saying is that if we seem to be punishing VVD/Liverpool to prove a point about contracts we are not just making a statement to the big clubs that we won't be bullied. We are also making one to the players and their agents and they will probably be less likely to sign long-term contracts or demand release-fee clauses.

It could just as easily be argued it could have the opposite effect. Players see that we're building something long term and are more willing to commit long term themselves.

In the past we've certainly seen the opposite effect, players leaving makes other players want to leave themselves, most notably Schneiderlin.

It's all a negotiating dance. He'll go by the end of August. I'd hope for 70mil but fear it'll be only 40-50mil.

It's all a negotiating dance. He'll go by the end of August. I'd hope for 70mil but fear it'll be only 40-50mil.

I'd prefer it being 40/50 million elsewhere than 70 million to Liverpool.

I'd prefer it being 40/50 million elsewhere than 70 million to Liverpool.

So you'd abandon 20 million quid or so just for the sake of spiting a club that you don't care for. Fortunately our board won't see it that way. The player won't be with us in any case so might as well get every last bent cent for him.

For me it's threefold.

 

1) After making such a fuss about tapping up & then rolling over and selling to Liverpool would make Saints seem laughable.

 

2) Selling him to anyone for less than the quoted £75m would make us seem weak

 

3) Selling him 3 weeks or less before the season starts & then expecting that we'll be able to complete a transfer for a new first choice centre back and give him and Stephens/Yoshida time to bed in together before the season starts on Aug 12th seems vastly optimistic. For this reason It's very close if not past the point we should be rejecting all bids and telling him his only option is to stay this season.

Exactly this.

I want to be positive & I want to be optimistic, but what concerns me is that:

- Our recruitment team considered our midfield options to be amongst the best in the league last season.

- Thought the striker trio of Austin / Long / Rodriguez would be sufficient.

It's all a negotiating dance. He'll go by the end of August. I'd hope for 70mil but fear it'll be only 40-50mil.

Why on Earth would we let our prized asset, on a 5 year contract, go for half the asking price? We're under no pressure at all to sell him, this summer or next.

I'd prefer it being 40/50 million elsewhere than 70 million to Liverpool.

That's beyond silly. He can go to whichever club meets our extortionate asking price.

As little as I like Liverpool and their deluded fans, the big clubs are fundamentally all the same. It's just Liverpool keep coming back to this particular watering hole. I'd take the money from whoever offers it and move on.

Can't really blame Les Reed for any of this, players have too much power nowadays and the club is in a difficult position. It's not their fault that Van Dyke is a complete tosser.

I would dig my heels in and keep him here. The press will have a spaz attack, Van Dyke will cry like a big baby for a while - a week after the transfer window shuts it will all be history and we will still have a fantastic centre back for another season.

So you'd abandon 20 million quid or so just for the sake of spiting a club that you don't care for. Fortunately our board won't see it that way. The player won't be with us in any case so might as well get every last bent cent for him.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

For me it's threefold.

 

1) After making such a fuss about tapping up & then rolling over and selling to Liverpool would make Saints seem laughable.

 

2) Selling him to anyone for less than the quoted £75m would make us seem weak

 

3) Selling him 3 weeks or less before the season starts & then expecting that we'll be able to complete a transfer for a new first choice centre back and give him and Stephens/Yoshida time to bed in together before the season starts on Aug 12th seems vastly optimistic. For this reason It's very close if not past the point we should be rejecting all bids and telling him his only option is to stay this season.

This is my exact feelings.

The club have made VVD the villain and put themselves in a position where fans accept him being sold. But not to Liverpool.

We won't sell to Liverpool unless it's for crazy money. It's that or there will be "Les Reed out" protests very quickly after a bad start. Part of the reason they have got away with this crap since Cortese left is that they have an ambiguous command structure. Kat is in control but isn't. RK is in control but isn't... Les Reed is in actual control but is beneath those two... who do the fans actually blame?

One thing is for sure, the wrong man lost his job this summer.

The same as happens if a player goes on strike you mean?

 

We got an extra year out of Schneiderlin and Wanyama and doing that didn't stop VvD signing a long term contract.

Only because the offers on the table for the two at the time were poor. £12m each if memory serves me correctly....

Only because the offers on the table for the two at the time were poor. £12m each if memory serves me correctly....

Remind we what actual offers we have had for VVD?

Remind we what actual offers we have had for VVD?

None so far. Will it stay that way though?

Personally, I think if someone offers £60m for him then we will sell. It's a huge sum of money to turn down for someone who doesn't want to be here.

None so far. Will it stay that way though?

 

Personally, I think if someone offers £60m for him then we will sell. It's a huge sum of money to turn down for someone who doesn't want to be here.

Well that's the question isn't it. If someone offers £60m we'll sell. If they don't offer what we think is fair value we will retain. The club is being bullied into dropping its pants, and as history has taught us it sells when it makes commercial sense to do so.

We got £25m and a season out of Morgan and same value and a season out of Wanyama.

Well Liverpool have stated no interest , if we approach them then its meltdown time

£50m or £70m the value to Saints is really the value of his contract or what we paid for him (£12m)the true value of VVD is the value of a rivals Bid

If striking defeats a contract then why offer better terms to any contracted player? it costs the club either way, wages or lose the player, we wrote off Osvaldo fee, I'd say the club will stick to its current postition.

Anyone who bids knows the value they value VVD at to them and Liverpool know they can't publicly bid , so VVD can't go to LFC this summer unless we offer him to them , which would put us in a poor bargaining postiton.

The more we talk about van Dyke and the inevitability of him leaving the more we play into Reed's hands.

"That's what the fans would like me to do" gets him of the "we will not sell van Dyke" hook at any price, the player is not for sale" hook very nicely, thank you!

For me, the rhetoric concerning Reed is quite weird. I feel that a lot of people have him as a supervillain intent on controlling our minds into accepting him selling the club's best players and lining his pockets with the cash. In reality, he seems to be a very pragmatic yet optimistic man. Yes, on occasion he has said that a player will stay or talks are going well etc and they have ended up leaving, but the position he is in is that a player wants to leave and fans demand something to be said. If he comes out and says "This player is leaving" fans will see him as weak, and I think he'd prefer to be a liar than weak.

Either way, Reed and his board have seen us rise up through the Prem and have consistent top 10 performances. He also got rid of Puel over playing style/internal disputes. He has the club's best interests at heart, and it really frustrates me when I see people slagging him off and painting him as some demon that actively searches for players to sell just so he can lie to the fans.

In regards to the Van Dijk situation, it's tough. The facts of the matter are; VVD has had his head turned, the club have adamantly said he will not be sold, and Pellegrino has ordered him to train alone if he is not 100%.

Reed, as usual, if VVD is sold, will be made out to be the bad guy after saying that no one is for sale. In my honest opinion I do not care about what has been said as long as the club doesn't suffer from it.

Whatever happens with VVD I since hope that fans don't turn on him as the good he's done for this club dramatically outweighs the times he's said something that turned out to be wrong.

Convinced if he was going to go, it would have happened weeks ago. We always like to get our major outgoings done as soon as possible. I'm expecting him and everyone else worth keeping to stay.

The more we talk about van Dyke and the inevitability of him leaving the more we play into Reed's hands.

 

"That's what the fans would like me to do" gets him of the "we will not sell van Dyke" hook at any price, the player is not for sale" hook very nicely, thank you!

You think he will be swayed to make a decision by what is written on here....

I don't blame Les Red if we sell Van dyke for over 70m. But i hope we do an schneyderlein/Wanjama and keep him one more year.